The High Court has refused a Pakistani national’s judicial review challenge to a decision refusing him retention of an EU Treaty Rights residence card. Ms Justice Tara Burns found no breach of fair procedures and ordered him to pay the Minister for Justice’s costs, including the costs of a discovery motion.
The applicant entered Ireland in 2005 on a student visa and later received a residence card through his marriage to Hungarian national JB. After he began divorce proceedings in June 2016, he applied to retain the card in his own right.
The Minister refused the application in December 2017, citing a lack of up-to-date evidence that JB was exercising EU Treaty rights when the divorce proceedings began. The applicant sought a review and submitted documents including a letter from JB, payslips and tax certificates. In November 2018, the Minister raised concerns about discrepancies in the employment documents and whether the marriage had been genuine. The review was refused in January 2019, and the decision was amended to include refusal under Regulations 27 and 28 and Article 35 of the EU Directive, invalidating the original permission.
The applicant obtained leave to seek judicial review on several grounds, but at the hearing relied only on the claim that the Minister had used evidence without disclosing all of it, preventing him from responding. Information from the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection and the Revenue Commissioners had been summarised in the Minister’s November 2018 letter. The underlying records were later disclosed through discovery, without a court order.
The applicant argued that fair procedures required the actual records to be provided before the review decision. The Minister accepted that the information relied on had to be disclosed, but argued that disclosure of the underlying documents was not required.
Justice Burns held that the applicant had been given the relevant information and an opportunity to address it. The documents disclosed later contained nothing relevant beyond what had already been communicated. The court therefore found no breach of the right to be heard, refused the relief sought and made the costs order against the applicant.