The High Court has refused Echezona Justice Nwachukwu’s application for judicial review of the Minister for Justice and Equality’s decision to revoke his second residence card and find that his marriage was one of convenience.
In a judgment delivered on 12 March 2020, Mr Justice Max Barrett held that Mr Nwachukwu could not argue that the Minister had applied the wrong burden of proof. That point had not been properly raised in the statement of grounds or at the leave stage, so leave to pursue it had not been granted. The judge said considering it at the substantive hearing would undermine the judicial review leave process.
The court also rejected Mr Nwachukwu’s separate argument that there was insufficient evidence for the Minister to conclude that the marriage was one of convenience from its beginning. The judge said there was ample evidence to raise concerns about Mr Nwachukwu’s credibility and the reliability of documents he had provided. He had not properly explained those concerns, including his failure to tell the Minister in 2014 that his wife had left Ireland.
The judgment recounts that Mr Nwachukwu arrived in Ireland in November 2008 without permission and married Dutch national Daniella Martinus Serberie in May 2009. He received a residence card in November 2009 on the basis that she was exercising free movement rights in Ireland. After she had left the State, he applied in March 2015 for a second card on the claim that she was still exercising those rights. The judge described that application as fraudulent; it resulted in a second card being granted.
The Minister notified Mr Nwachukwu in June 2018 that the marriage was considered one of convenience. On 30 July 2018 the Minister revoked the second card and made that finding. Mr Nwachukwu’s appeal was unsuccessful, and the Minister affirmed the decision on 14 June 2019. The judicial review challenged that affirmed decision.
The judge said the Minister’s concerns remained and, together with the information available, provided a sufficient basis for the decision. He clarified that the Minister had not treated the absence of an explanation itself as proof; rather, the concerns had not been dispelled. The judgment also discussed whether relief would have been granted even if the applicant had succeeded on his arguments, but expressly described those comments as obiter.
The court refused all the reliefs sought. The judgment does not state an order for costs.