The High Court has dismissed a judicial review application by a Pakistani man challenging the refusal of a residence card after the Minister for Justice found his marriage to an EU national was one of convenience.
The case concerned the Minister’s decision of 24 July 2017, which affirmed the refusal of the residence card. The applicant sought an order quashing that decision. Mr Justice Richard Humphreys dismissed the application, concluding that it failed on its merits.
The judgment recounts that the applicant said he met the woman, identified as Ms K.R., in London in July 2014. The Minister’s account was that she travelled from Budapest to Dublin in April 2015, when they gave notice of their intention to marry, and returned to Budapest that day. They married in Cavan in July 2015. The applicant arrived in Ireland in January 2015 and sought asylum; a decision was later made to transfer him to the UK.
The Minister refused the residence card in July 2016, finding the marriage was one of convenience under the 2015 free movement regulations. The applicant sought a review. The Minister affirmed the refusal in July 2017, then issued further reasons in August after rescinding a letter that had shortcomings. A proposal to deport the applicant was withdrawn in September 2017 because he remained in the asylum system.
The judge rejected the applicant’s arguments that the 2015 regulations could not apply to the marriage, that the Minister’s finding breached Article 41 of the Constitution, and that the decision failed to consider Article 8 rights. He said Article 8 would be considered if deportation arose later. The question of whether the applicant should face a deportation or removal order no longer arose because the deportation proposal had been withdrawn.
Separately, the judge said the Minister had contended that documents submitted by the applicant were fraudulent. The judgment addressed a bank statement showing transactions during a period when Ms K.R. was said to be outside Ireland, and an invoice for work she was said to have carried out while absent. The applicant said he had used her bank account and disputed some details of her movements. The judge said the concerns had not been effectively addressed and that either issue could support refusing relief at the court’s discretion. The claim was dismissed in any event on its merits.
The judge also expressed hope that gardaí would contact Ms K.R., through international colleagues if necessary, to ensure appropriate support was available. This was an observation in the judgment, not a separate order. The court’s order was that the application be dismissed.