The Minister for Justice has won her appeal to reinstate her decision to revoke a Georgian man’s residency permit after deeming his marriage to an EU citizen was one of convenience.
The Court of Appeal was satisfied the High Court erred in fact and in law in deciding to quash the Minister’s revocation.
Ruling on behalf of the three-judge court, Ms Justice Ann Power held that the legal basis for the Minister’s decision was clear and the procedural safeguards required by law were observed.
The man married a Irish-based Lithuanian woman who he met on a dating app while he was living in Georgia.
The marriage took place here in March 2017, six months after he arrived unlawfully in Ireland. His wife had been living here since 2006.
He applied for a residency permit about a month after the wedding, on the basis of his marriage to an EU citizen.
He withdrew his international protection claim in July and was granted a permit in December 2017 for a five-year period.
He was told the onus was on him to advise the Minister of “any change in circumstances” that may affect his right to reside in the State.
According to the couple, the marriage became strained, and the wife left the marital address for a short while before agreeing in early 2018 to try to work out their differences.
By October of that year, it was claimed, she had left their rented accommodation permanently.
In February 2019, the man sought a new passport, which prompted the Minister to request details showing he was still resident here with his spouse.
The couple wrote back saying she had recently moved out because they were "having lots of fights and after trying to save the relationship we decided to move on and live as a separated couple… We decided to divorce."
The Minister examined the couple’s different bill addresses and other documents, before writing to him proposing to revoke his residency permit.
Having considered his response to the proposal, the Minister proceeded to revoke the permit, stating, among other reasons, he had engaged in a marriage of convenience to obtain it.
This decision was affirmed on appeal.
The man brought a High Court challenge claiming the revocation decision was based on a personal credibility assessment in which his account and that of his wife were disbelieved. He argued that the Minister was required to hold an oral hearing as part of her decision-making.
The High Court overturned the decision, ruling that an oral process was required to ensure fairness.
The Minister appealed to the Court of Appeal, submitting she at all material times complied with the provisions of the European Communities Regulations of 2015 and the Free Movement Directive. She pointed to the man’s failure to request an oral hearing.
The Minister’s practice in processing administrative decisions of this nature is to conduct all reviews “on the papers”, she further submitted.
The man opposed the appeal.
Ruling, Ms Justice Power held there was a sufficient basis entitling the Minister to reach her decision, while the man’s right to natural and constitutional justice was not breached by the lack of an oral hearing.
The natural and constitutional right to be heard in administrative decision-making processes does not mandate a right to an oral hearing in every instance, she said, adding that the man’s failure to request one was a factor to be weighted in determining justice in this case.
The judge said the man was afforded a “meaningful opportunity” to provide additional information and evidence to dispel the Minister’s concerns.
Ms Justice Aileen Donnelly and Ms Justice Úna Ní Raifeartaigh agreed with the conclusions.
