The High Court has refused the Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General’s application for a certificate granting leave to appeal a December 2019 decision in Muhammad Nadeem’s immigration case.
Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered the ruling on 18 February 2020. The application was made under section 5 of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000, as amended. The court said the statutory test required a point of law of exceptional public importance and that an appeal be desirable in the public interest. Both conditions had to be met.
The respondents argued that the case raised a question about whether a person who had received a temporary Stamp 4 as a permitted family member under the 2015 free movement regulations could be subject to a deportation proposal after being refused a residence card. The refusal was attributed to false or misleading information about an alleged durable relationship with an EU citizen.
The court said the respondents had identified about 145 residence permit applications annually, but had not shown how many involved comparable circumstances. It described this case as unusual: despite the eventual refusal, the applicant had been found to be a permitted family member. The court also noted there was no allegation that false or misleading information had been provided in relation to that permitted-family-member finding.
In considering whether the law was uncertain and whether an appeal could benefit the public, the judge relied on the European Court of Justice’s ruling in Chenchooliah. He said the asserted exceptional public importance was no longer apparent in light of that decision, and he could not see how an appeal would be desirable in the public interest. The respondents had not shown how many similar cases might arise or how an appeal would resolve other cases.
The court refused the certificate and leave to appeal. It also declined to refer a question to the European Court of Justice, saying a reference was not necessary to give judgment. The judge noted that possible routes to the Supreme Court might remain, including an application for a so-called leapfrog appeal from the December decision; the refusal did not determine those routes.