The Court of Appeal has refused appeals by L.A. and S.R. against a High Court decision upholding refusals of their applications under the Special Student Scheme. The appeals concerned judicial review of the Minister for Justice’s decisions and review decisions, not fresh assessments of the applicants’ eligibility or challenges to the earlier decisions revoking their residence permissions.
The non-statutory scheme offered immigration permission to qualifying non-EEA nationals who had held student permission in Ireland between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2010. Among its criteria, applicants had to have been of “good character and conduct” before arriving and since arriving in the State.
L.A.’s residence permission, granted on the basis of his marriage to an EU citizen, was revoked in 2016 after the Minister concluded that the supporting employment documents were intentionally misleading and that his wife was not living and exercising EU treaty rights in Ireland. S.R.’s residence permission, granted on the basis of her marriage to an EU citizen, was revoked in 2018 after the Minister concluded that the marriage was one of convenience and supporting documents were false or misleading. Neither revocation decision was challenged.
Both applicants later applied under the Special Student Scheme. Their applications were refused, and after reconsideration they were again refused in September 2020. Reviewing officers upheld the refusals on 23 October 2020. The applicants argued that the Minister had applied a fixed policy, failed to consider their individual circumstances and positive material, and should have weighed that material against the earlier findings.
Delivering judgment on 3 October 2023, Ms Justice Costello said the scheme required applicants to satisfy both good-character and good-conduct requirements. A sufficiently serious instance of bad conduct could mean an applicant failed the criterion; the decision maker was not required to conduct a holistic assessment of character or balance that conduct against positive material. The court said the earlier revocation decisions remained valid and could not be challenged indirectly in these proceedings.
The court also rejected the claim that the review materials had not been considered. The review letters said the officers had considered the applications, immigration records and additional review material. The applicants had provided no evidence sufficient to displace those statements. The court said a complaint about inadequate reasons was outside the grounds on which they had been given leave to seek judicial review.
The Court of Appeal refused both appeals and the relief sought. It did not reconsider the underlying revocation decisions or make new findings about the applicants’ eligibility under the scheme.