The High Court has dismissed a judicial review challenge to the refusal of an Egyptian man’s application under the Regularisation of Long-Term Undocumented Migrants Scheme, finding that he had not shown an entitlement to relief.
The applicant challenged the Minister for Justice’s decision of 4 December 2023, which upheld an earlier refusal because he had not lived in Ireland without valid residence permission for four continuous years before the scheme opened on 31 January 2022. The case was heard as a test case for a cohort of similar claims. Although the applicant’s individual claim had become moot after he received permission to remain through a separate statutory process, the court found utility in deciding the issues.
The dispute concerned two temporary Stamp 4 permissions granted while the applicant’s challenge to the revocation of his EU Treaty Rights residence card was under review. The first ran from 9 September 2020 to 26 February 2021; the second, granted on 27 August 2021, expired on 20 May 2022.
The Minister had revoked the applicant’s EU Treaty Rights permissions after finding that documents supporting his applications were false or misleading and that his marriage to an EU citizen was one of convenience. The Minister later affirmed that decision. The applicant argued that this finding invalidated all his permissions, including the temporary permissions during the review, and meant he met the scheme’s residence condition.
Mr Justice Heslin found that the review permissions were granted for the specific purpose and duration of the review, rather than on the basis of the marriage. The Minister did not revoke either permission or declare it invalid. Each ended on its stated expiry date. The judge said treating them as void from the outset would amount to making a different decision from the one the Minister had made.
The court also rejected the argument that the marriage finding automatically invalidated every permission for the scheme’s purposes. The judge said the effect of invalidity depends on the circumstances, and the scheme was directed at people who had experienced the particular challenges of long-term undocumented residence. The applicant had the benefit of residence permissions for much of the period in question and could lawfully remain and work while they were in force.
The judge held that the refusal was factually sustainable and was neither irrational nor unreasonable. He also found no material error of fact or breach of fair procedures. The application for judicial review was dismissed.