The High Court has refused an Indian national’s application to overturn decisions refusing him a further residence card and revoking his existing card. The court found no error in the Minister for Justice’s decisions and ordered costs against the applicant, to be adjudicated if the parties could not agree them.
The applicant came to Ireland in 2010 on student permission. He married a Hungarian national, referred to in the judgment as AN, in January 2013 and received a residence card as the family member of an EU citizen exercising Treaty rights. The Minister later refused a further card and revoked the existing one, finding on review that the marriage was one of convenience.
The applicant sought judicial review of the two review decisions. He argued that the Minister had not given adequate reasons, had applied the wrong legal test, had failed to provide details of information received from Hungarian authorities, and had not properly considered AN’s representations.
The Minister’s reasons included information that AN had spent extended periods in Hungary, where she was recorded as living and working, receiving benefits and being registered as single. The applicant’s solicitor disputed aspects of that information and relayed AN’s explanations. The Minister accepted that AN might be exercising Treaty rights and was not satisfied that the applicant had submitted false or misleading documentation, but concluded that the marriage was one of convenience and maintained the decisions on that basis.
Justice Tara Burns said the review decisions explained why the Minister reached that conclusion, including the couple’s limited time living together, the periods AN spent in Hungary and the information from Hungarian authorities. The court also rejected the claim that the applicant had been denied a fair opportunity to respond: the relevant information had been disclosed in summary, and representations had been made about it. The judge noted that the Minister considered AN’s explanations but preferred the Hungarian authorities’ information.
The court also rejected the argument that the Minister had used the wrong test, pointing to the decisions’ express finding that the marriage was one of convenience. Claims raised at the hearing about joint bank account details, Viber calls and family illnesses were criticised as inadequately pleaded or unsupported by affidavit evidence.
The court refused the relief sought. It did not make a new immigration decision or itself determine a further residence card application; the challenged Ministerial decisions remained in place.