The High Court has refused a Pakistani national’s application to quash a removal order made after his Portuguese spouse left Ireland.
Mr Justice Barr ruled that the Minister for Justice had jurisdiction under the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) (No. 2) Regulations 2006 to make the order. The court therefore refused the relief sought in the judicial review.
The man arrived in Ireland in February 2005 and married a Portuguese national in January 2006. He received a resident’s card based on the marriage and his wife’s exercise of EU free movement rights. The card was valid until January 2012.
The judgment records that the couple later had marital problems. The man said he visited relatives in the United Kingdom in November 2009 and, on his return, found his wife had left their matrimonial property. She may have returned to Portugal around that time.
In 2010, the Minister informed him that he no longer qualified for residence under the EU rules because his wife was no longer exercising treaty rights in Ireland. His solicitors submitted evidence of employment and private medical insurance and argued that he should be allowed to remain. The Minister later revoked his permission to remain. Following a review and further representations, the Minister made a removal order in July 2012 with a six-month exclusion period.
The man sought judicial review, arguing that his residence had been a derivative right based on his wife’s presence in Ireland. He contended that once she left, the regulations no longer applied to him and the Minister could not use them to order his removal. The Minister argued that the regulations continued to apply to people who were no longer entitled to remain under them, and specifically permitted a removal order in those circumstances.
The judge agreed with the Minister on jurisdiction. He found that the regulations envisaged the situation: a person who entered as a beneficiary through marriage to an EU citizen could no longer rely on them after that citizen left Ireland and would no longer be entitled to remain under their provisions.
The Minister also argued that the man was barred from challenging use of the regulations because his earlier representations had asked for his case to be dealt with under them. The judge rejected that estoppel argument, finding the man’s conduct had not prevented him from raising the jurisdiction issue. But because the Minister did have jurisdiction, that point did not affect the result. The court refused the application. The judgment does not state that the court separately granted or refused the requested injunction.