The Court of Appeal has allowed the Minister for Justice’s appeal and set aside a High Court order that had quashed the revocation of Mohammad Imran’s permanent residence card. The court held that the Minister was not required to carry out a standalone proportionality assessment in this case, where the card was found to have been obtained through false or misleading information.
The Minister’s December 2021 review decision upheld the revocation, finding that information and documents submitted to support Imran’s permanent residence application were false or misleading as to a material fact. The disputed documents included invoices said to show that his then-wife, EU citizen Evelin Lango, had worked as a self-employed childminder in Ireland from December 2015 to May 2016.
The review decision relied in part on a solicitor’s submission that Lango had left Ireland in January 2016 and had not returned. A later letter from the solicitor described that date as a mistake, saying Imran recalled that she left in mid-2016. The Court of Appeal noted that Imran had not explained the date discrepancy in sworn evidence. It also recorded that the Minister’s decision found the marriage genuine, not one of convenience, and relied on employment records that did not reflect the claimed childminding work.
The High Court had quashed the review decision and sent the matter back to the Minister for further consideration. It considered that a proportionality assessment was required before revoking the card and also questioned the basis for the fraud finding. The Minister appealed. Imran opposed the appeal and cross-appealed the High Court’s finding that the Minister had given adequate reasons.
On appeal, the court said the finding that the supporting documentation was fraudulent had not been challenged in the judicial review proceedings. It distinguished earlier High Court cases involving, among other things, vested citizenship rights or a disputed fraud finding. It held that Article 35 of the EU Citizens’ Rights Directive requires a decision to be individualised and proportionate, but does not require a separate proportionality assessment in every fraud case. Where the claimed right was obtained by false pretences, the court said, the right had not accrued.
The court also rejected the High Court’s view that Imran should have been given another opportunity to comment on the January 2016 departure information, which had come from his own side. It found the Minister’s reasons adequate and said the revocation decision reflected an individual assessment.
The court did not strike out the judicial review proceedings over omissions in the High Court leave application. It found that the second residence-card application and citizenship application should have been disclosed, but left the consequences of the omissions to the trial judge’s discretion; on the appeal before it, it made no order striking out the proceedings.
The court allowed the Minister’s appeal, set aside the High Court order and refused Imran’s cross-appeal. It said costs would ordinarily follow the event, giving Imran 14 days to make a written submission on costs. It made no costs order on the cross-appeal.