The Court of Appeal has dismissed a challenge by S.M. and M.T.A. to the refusal of a family reunification visa, concluding that the Minister was entitled to find the evidence did not establish the formal requirements of their marriage.
The case concerned M.T.A.’s application for a D-type visa to join S.M., an Irish and Somali dual national, in Ireland. They said they married at a proxy Nikkah ceremony in Jigjiga, Ethiopia, on 24 June 2018. The High Court dismissed their judicial review challenge in November 2022. They appealed that decision.
The appeal court said the Minister did not have to reach a definitive conclusion that the marriage was invalid. The question was whether the applicants had provided enough evidence to satisfy her that a valid marriage had taken place. The court found they had not.
The judgment identified problems with the marriage certificates. Neither was attested or apostilled as required by the visa guidance, and the certificates gave different versions of S.M.’s name. The court also found that the first certificate did not show that the ceremony was conducted by proxy. A later certificate said S.M.’s father had consented and given a proxy to the presiding judge, but it did not identify who represented S.M. or who gave consent to the marriage.
The court described the failure to provide a full copy of S.M.’s passport as a significant omission. The passport could help establish her travel history and the couple’s claimed meetings. The refusal of the original application had expressly identified the missing passport pages. The court also noted that the Minister had been told there was no supporting evidence that S.M.’s mother was in Ethiopia for the Nikkah. A USB stick submitted by the applicants could not be opened for security reasons, and the visa guidance did not accept USB sticks.
The High Court had found that the Minister’s concern that M.T.A. might become a cost to the State was reached without giving the couple notice or a chance to respond. The Court of Appeal nevertheless held that this error did not require the visa refusal to be quashed: other valid grounds independently supported it, and the court considered it inconceivable that the result would have changed without the financial finding.
Arguments about the safety of travel to Ethiopia and the couple’s rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights fell away once the court concluded the Minister was entitled to find the marriage evidence insufficient. The court dismissed the appeal. It did not decide the Minister’s cross-appeal on costs; it directed the parties to exchange submissions within seven days and listed a costs hearing for 25 June 2024.