The British Supreme Court has backed the Justice Minister’s decision to reject a residency application under a specific programme from an Indian woman involved in a fraudulent marriage and a Pakistani male found to have submitted falsified documents. The unanimous verdict of the court was delivered on Friday by Justice Iseult O’Malley, observing that the actions of the individuals in question were perceived as undermining the integrity of the state and the EU immigration systems.
Despite this, the court observed that both individuals have received authorisation to stay in Ireland via the Programme for Regularisation of Long Term Undocumented Migrants. The judge confirmed that the minister had correctly evaluated all the information provided by both applicants, including character references and employment records.
Post a High Court judgment supporting the decision of the Minister on the revocations, both applicants successfully reversed this decision on appeal because the Minister hadn’t “adequately engaged with the submissions presented by the respondents during the review process”. This judgement was then contested by the Minister in the Supreme Court concerning the level of their obligation to interact with all material submitted by a claimant.
Justice O’Malley highlighted that the two non-European Economic Area (EEA) individuals had achieved student visa permissions to stay in Ireland before 2011, but their permissions to remain in the country expired later. Once the permissions had ended, both respondents gained a different residence permit through marriage to non-Irish EU citizens. Their permission to stay in the state was then each revoked by the Minister under the “special scheme”, based on a decision that the “individuals displayed insufficiently good character and behaviour”.
Introduced in 2018, the “special scheme” allows specific non-EEA nationals who held student permissions between 2005 and 2010 to apply for permission to stay in the state.
Concerning Indian citizen Sangeeta Rana, it was decided by the Minister that she had schemed a “convenience marriage” to indefinitely reside in the country, as stipulated by EU law. Ms Rana arrived in the nation on a student visa in October 2009. While the visa was set to run out in October 2014, a month prior to this, Ms Rana tied the knot with a man from Lithuania. Following this, she was granted permission to live in the country for the next five years, from March 2015.
In October 2016, Ms Rana became a mother to a child, whose father is also an Indian citizen. However, she did not attempt renewal of her registration card upon its expiry in September 2017.
It was explained by the Minister that Ms Rana’s Lithuanian spouse was supposedly residing with his significant other in Lithuania since February 2011 and they have a child together.
The Minister confronted Ms Rana with claims of “deceptive and misleading” documents that she had purposely submitted to gain rights she otherwise would not be entitled to.
In another situation, Lehrasib Ali, hailing from Pakistan, received a student visa in 2007 which expired in 2013. In September 2012, Mr Ali wed an Estonian citizen and, in 2014, was given a five-year residential status. But, in December 2014, the Minister penned a letter to Mr Ali stating that his wife had been in Estonia and had borne two children there.
The Minister contended that Mr Ali had produced “fraudulent and misleading” documents concerning his wife’s location, declaring it as a fraudulent deed. However, unlike Ms Rana, there was no ruling that suggested his marriage was a convenience one.
On Friday’s verdict, Justice O’Malley declared that the denied individuals to the special scheme still retained all appropriate rights under ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) protections. She also endorsed the Minister’s decision to deny applicants under the specific scheme criterion.
Justice O’Malley asserted there was no conflict in a person failing a good conduct test for one reason and succeeding for another.
In coming down in support of the Minister’s side, the Justice pointed out that whether the decisions met the responsibility to provide plausible reasons, a prior Supreme Court ruling “asserted that a statement from a decision-making body indicating that all significant elements had been considered was adequate, unless there was proof to suggest otherwise”.