The Circuit Family Court has rejected a preliminary appeal by two anonymised appellants over whether provisions on marriages of convenience can apply to their intended marriage. The court ruled that the amended Civil Registration Act covers marriages involving a non-EU foreign national and an Irish citizen as well as those involving an EU citizen.
The appellants, identified in the judgment as A.Z. and S.S., argued that the provisions introduced by the Civil Registration (Amendment) Act 2014 applied only where a non-EU foreign national intended to marry an EU citizen who was not Irish. They said marriage to an Irish citizen did not automatically confer an immigration advantage and argued that the statutory definition referred to EU free-movement rules.
The Superintendent Registrar of the Civil Registration Service, West Region, Health Service Executive, argued that the definition covered two distinct situations: immigration decisions concerning foreign nationals, and decisions about the rights of people entitled to reside in Ireland under EU law.
Judge Petria Mc Donnell accepted the respondent’s interpretation. She said the definition referred separately to determinations concerning visas, entry or removal of foreign nationals, and determinations of rights to enter or reside under specified EU legislation. The judge also noted that the Act defines a “foreign national” as someone who is neither an Irish citizen nor a citizen of an EU member state.
The judgment records that A.Z. is a Pakistani national and S.S. an Irish national. The judge said marriage to an Irish citizen can itself be regarded as an immigration advantage because marital status may be considered in immigration decisions, including in light of constitutional and human-rights protections for family life. She said the question at this stage was not whether the marriage actually provided an advantage, but whether it was entered into solely to secure one.
The ruling was limited to the preliminary issue about the scope of the 2014 provisions. The court rejected the appellants’ appeal on that issue and said it would hear the substantive issue on a date to be fixed. The judgment does not decide whether the intended marriage was a marriage of convenience.