The High Court refused two applicants leave to bring judicial review proceedings over a shortened immigration permission and the postponement of their proposed marriage, finding no substance to either challenge.
In a judgment delivered on 15 February 2016, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said the first applicant’s permission to remain in Ireland had initially been granted for study until 31 August 2016. On 9 December 2015, it was amended to expire on 9 January 2016.
The applicants’ barrister said the stated reason was the first applicant’s failure to attend college courses. The court papers included an October letter from Cork City College saying his attendance was unsatisfactory and a November letter saying he had been deregistered. The applicants also suggested an ulterior motive, but the judge said the papers contained no evidence to support that claim. He considered the amendment justified by the circumstances and found no arguable basis for judicial review.
The applicants had planned to marry on 11 December 2015 at the Registrar’s Office in Nenagh, County Tipperary. The Garda National Immigration Bureau objected under the Civil Registration Act 2004 on the ground that the proposed marriage would be one of convenience.
The Health Service Executive told the applicants that an interview date would follow and that the marriage would not proceed until the objection process was complete. The judge clarified that this was a postponement pending inquiries, not a final refusal to solemnise the marriage. He found nothing to suggest the registrar had failed to meet the statutory prerequisites for investigating the objection, and rejected the challenge.
The judge also said that, even if there had been grounds to grant leave on the immigration issue, he would have refused it as a matter of discretion because the first applicant was then unlawfully in the State. He noted the challenge could be processed by lawyers without the applicant’s personal presence if he returned to Pakistan. The judgment also criticised the applicants’ affidavits for not adequately setting out the material facts.
The court refused leave on both issues and ordered the applicants’ solicitors to serve the Chief State Solicitor’s Office with the judgment within seven days.