The High Court has ordered the Minister for Justice to decide within 28 days an administrative review of a refused residence card application. It declined to quash the refusal itself, which had been based on a reported denial of the applicant’s spouse’s employment.
The judicial review was brought by Algerian national Adbenour Chikhi and Polish national Ilza Orechowska, who married in March 2009. Chikhi applied for a residence card as the family member of a Union citizen, relying on Orechowska’s employment in Ireland.
The Minister refused the card on 15 September 2009, saying the department could not verify that Orechowska was employed. The judgment records that, in a later letter, the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service said a staff member at Dunnes Stores had told it that nobody by the name given was then employed there. Orechowska said she had worked full time at the store from April 2008 until 15 November 2009.
The applicants’ solicitors disputed the account and supplied updated employment documents, including a letter from the store’s HR manager dated 23 September 2009. The court said this evidence was available through the administrative review and could address the doubt raised by the reported phone call.
Justice Cooke said the Minister was entitled to make appropriate checks on whether the employment condition was met and whether documents were authentic. Such checks must not create administrative obstacles beyond those permitted by the regulations and directive. In this case, because officials had received a specific response denying the claimed employment, the court did not consider the refusal unlawful and refused to quash it by certiorari.
The judge observed that the refusal letter’s explanation—that employment could not be verified—appeared inadequate because it did not state the more specific basis later described by the department. However, the applicants learned of that basis before a review decision had been made and were able to submit evidence in response.
No decision on the review had been made by the time the judicial review began or by the hearing. The court held that the delay was unreasonable and excessive, and ordered the Minister to decide the review within 28 days from perfection of the order. It did not determine other issues raised at the hearing, including a challenge to the effectiveness of the remedy under Regulation 21.