The High Court has certified five questions of law for a possible Supreme Court appeal over the legal basis and limits of the State’s long-term residency scheme.
The certificate followed an earlier High Court judgment, delivered on 24 January 2014, which quashed the Minister for Justice and Equality’s refusal to grant Delour Hussein five years’ residency permission under the scheme. In the judgment now under consideration, delivered on 7 March 2014, Mr Justice McDermott concluded that the refusal was made under section 4 of the Immigration Act 2004 and was subject to the restricted appeal provisions in section 5(3)(a).
Hussein had worked in Ireland as a chef from February 2005 on annually renewed work permits. The Minister refused his application after a conviction for driving without insurance at Sligo District Court in August 2011. Hussein paid a €300 fine. The earlier High Court decision held that section 4(3) did not permit refusal on that basis because the offence was not punishable by at least one year’s imprisonment. It also found the refusal and a review upholding it unreasonable and disproportionate.
The Minister sought a certificate to appeal, arguing that the long-term residency scheme could instead rest on executive power and operate outside section 4. The Minister also argued that the court’s reading of section 4(3) restricted the grounds for refusing scheme applications and raised questions about whether that provision applied to people already in the State seeking to vary or renew permission.
Hussein argued that the scheme refusal was not a refusal under section 4 and that section 5’s appeal limits did not apply. The judge rejected that submission, finding that the decision was a refusal to grant the scheme’s benefit and should be treated as a refusal to renew or vary permission under section 4.
Applying the test for a section 5 certificate, the judge found the legal questions were of exceptional public importance and that clarification would benefit future cases. He certified questions about whether the Minister may operate schemes outside sections 4 and 5; whether section 4 governs the long-term residency scheme; the Minister’s discretion over eligibility terms; whether section 4(3) applies to refusals to vary or renew permission under section 4(7); and whether refusals may be based on grounds beyond section 4(3).
The judgment grants a certificate on those questions. It does not resolve them, nor does it determine the appeal itself. The source records that an appeal had already been filed by the applicant; it does not state the outcome of any appeal.