The Court of Appeal has dismissed a Brazilian national’s appeal against the refusal of his application to renew permission to live in Ireland, finding no legal or factual error in the Minister’s assessment of his private life rights.
The appeal concerned only the Minister’s decision of 26 March 2019 refusing permission to reside. The man had also challenged a proposal to deport him, but the refusal to quash that proposal was not part of this appeal. The deportation proposal was later withdrawn after he obtained Portuguese citizenship. The Court of Appeal nevertheless proceeded to decide the appeal, which had already reached an advanced stage.
The man, born in 1983, had lived in Ireland since 2006. He relied on his years in the State, work, business interests and friendships. He did not claim a right to respect for family life in Ireland. His residence history included visitor, student, employment and Stamp 4 permissions. In 2011 he received a five-year residence permission based on his marriage to an EU national. In 2018 the Minister found the marriage was one of convenience and revoked that permission. He did not seek judicial review of that finding.
The Minister’s 2019 decision accepted that refusing permission interfered with the man’s Article 8 right to respect for private life. It weighed his residence, work, business links and friendships against the State’s interest in immigration control and the integrity of the immigration system. The Minister also considered that much of his later residence arose from the marriage permission, which was found to have been obtained through a marriage of convenience, and that he had not reported the marriage had broken down.
The man argued that the Minister should have explained exactly which periods of residence gave rise to Article 8 rights and how each period was weighed. The Court of Appeal held that there was no legal requirement to identify each period as lawful or unlawful in order to recognise those rights. It found the Minister had considered the overall period of residence and the private life interests put forward, and had carried out a balancing exercise. The court also rejected the claimed errors over the description of the permissions and the weight given to the State’s interests.
The court dismissed the appeal. It said the Minister was entitled to weigh the later residence and the circumstances of the marriage in the assessment. The judgment does not quash the 2019 refusal or determine the separate deportation proposal. The Minister was considered entitled to appeal costs; unless the man applies to contest costs within two weeks, an order dismissing the appeal and awarding those costs is to be made.