The High Court refused leave to bring judicial review proceedings against a decision affirming the refusal of an Albanian man’s application for permission to remain in Ireland based on his marriage to an Irish citizen. The court said an unchallenged financial-criteria ground was sufficient to leave the refusal in place.
The applicants sought to challenge a decision communicated on 27 February 2017. They argued that the Minister had relied on “serious concerns” that the marriage might be one of convenience without making a definitive finding. Their application for leave was heard by Ms Justice O’Regan, who delivered judgment on 22 May 2017.
The judgment records that the first applicant came to Ireland in January 2014 and applied for asylum, citing his asserted homosexuality and fear of returning to Albania. That application was rejected. The second applicant became a naturalised Irish citizen in April 2013, according to the first applicant’s affidavit. The applicants met in summer 2015 and married in Dublin on 6 July 2016.
The first applicant then applied to remain in Ireland based on the marriage. The application was refused in October 2016 and that refusal was affirmed after an appeal. Both the initial refusal and the February 2017 decision referred to the sponsor not meeting the financial criteria in the relevant family-reunification policy.
Justice O’Regan noted that the financial ground was sufficient on its own to refuse the application. It had not been challenged in the December 2016 appeal, the judicial review grounds, the grounding affidavit or submissions. Even if the applicants succeeded on their complaint about the marriage-related concerns, the February decision would still stand on the financial ground.
The applicants’ counsel argued that leave should nevertheless be granted because the expressed concerns about the marriage could continue to affect the couple. The judgment noted a tension between the written ground, which complained that there had been no definitive finding, and the submission that a definitive finding had been made. The judge rejected the argument for leave on that basis and refused leave. The court did not determine the merits of the marriage-related challenge.