Member Login

Impermissible for judicial review applicant to argue a point for which he was not granted leave

By: James Cross BL

or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments

High Court refuses judicial review of the decision of the Minister for Justice to revoke a residence card, on the grounds that: it was impermissible for the applicant in this judicial review to argue a point for which he did not seek leave; and there was ample evidence before the Minister to support his adverse credibility findings

Asylum and immigration – judicial review – challenge to the decision revoking a residence card – applicant came to the state and married a EU national – obtained a residence card on the basis that his wife was exercising her EU rights in Ireland – wife left the state – made a successful, if fraudulent, application to renew his residence card – Minister put the applicant on notice of the fact that he thought that it was a marriage of convenience – revoked the residence card – appeal refused – proceedings issued – argued that the Minister applied an incorrect burden of proof – inadequately pleaded - did not seek leave for, did not apprise the court of, and did not place the respondent reasonably on notice of the burden of proof point that he wished to make regarding the impugned decision - clear that the leave-granting judge did not grant leave in relation to an(y) argument that the Minister in arriving at the impugned decision applied an incorrect burden of proof - mockery of any semblance of justice towards the Minister for the court now to adjudicate upon a point in respect of which leave for judicial review could have been granted had it been sought, but was not sought and so could not have been granted – adequacy of evidence - ample evidence before the Minister to support his adverse credibility findings – applicant has repeatedly behaved falsely towards the Minister over a protracted period – discretion – judicial review refused –

Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *