The High Court has refused a Pakistani man’s challenge to the Minister for Justice’s decision to revoke his residence card after finding that his marriage to an EU citizen was one of convenience.
In a judgment delivered on 6 February 2024, Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger held that the Minister’s conclusions were neither irrational nor unreasonable. She also found that the process, which included written submissions and a review of an earlier decision, met the applicant’s rights to fair procedures and natural justice.
The applicant sought certiorari of the Minister’s decision of 11 April 2022. He argued that the Minister had overlooked evidence including a joint utility bill, a tenancy agreement, photographs and evidence that he paid for his spouse’s flights. He also argued he should have been given a personal interview before the marriage was found to be one of convenience.
The Minister had raised concerns in 2018 about the short period between the couple meeting and giving notice of their intention to marry, the applicant’s precarious immigration position at the time, the spouse’s limited employment in Ireland, and her departure from the State about a year after the marriage. The applicant said the relationship broke down in 2014, but he did not notify the Minister then. He first disclosed the change in circumstances in 2018, when seeking permission to remain.
The court said the applicant had been told the Minister’s concerns and had opportunities to respond through written submissions, with legal representation, and to seek a review of the first-instance decision. There was no conflicting testimony or factual dispute that required an oral hearing, the judge said. The applicant had not identified any matter that could only have been addressed at an interview.
The judgment noted that the evidence included a tenancy agreement shared with two other people, a utility bill, and 33 photographs, only four of which showed the couple together. The judge acknowledged that the Minister’s 2022 decision used definitive language in saying there was no evidence of joint liabilities or significant cohabitation, without mentioning those documents in that passage. However, the judgment said the decision as a whole showed that the Minister assessed the material and found its quality and probative value insufficient to dispel her concerns.
The court refused the application to quash the decision. The judge’s indicative view was that the Minister was entitled to her costs. The matter was listed for 16 February 2024 for any submissions on final orders; the judgment does not record the final costs order.