Facts: E.M., a Pakistani national, arrived in Ireland in 2011 and applied for asylum. This application was refused. In 2012, he was issued with a deportation order. That same year, the appellant married an EU national resident in Ireland and he was granted a residence permission on this basis. When seeking to renew this permission in 2017, the Minister refused the renewal as it was considered that his was a marriage of convenience. The applicant was notified of an intention to deport him under section 3, Immigration Act 1999. He was invited to make representations to the Minister setting out why a deportation order should not issue pursuant to the various headings under section 3(6). Among his submissions, the applicant referred to his employment prospects and the fact that his business may fail if he were to be deported and the State will lose the revenue generated by the employment his business creates.
The Minister considered the representations, and recognised the applicant’s employment prospects, but also considered that he did not have permission to reside or work in the State and there was no obligation to grant him a permission to facilitate his employment or self-employment. The Minister informed the applicant of an intention to deport him.
The applicant sought judicial review of this decision in the High Court. In the High Court, O’Regan J held that while the Minister was incorrect to refer to the appellant’s lack of permission to reside at the same time as considering his employment prospects, this error was nonetheless minor in the broader set of reasons for the deportation order, including the marriage of convenience. O’Regan J upheld the decision of the Minister. It was also held that the applicant was not entitled to relief due to his misconduct and lack of candour in abusing the asylum and immigration system. The applicant appealed the case to the Supreme Court.
Reasoning: In the Supreme Court, Justice Dunne considered the Minister’s decision and turned to four relevant cases that dealt with similar issues: MAH v Minister for Justice [2021], ANA v Minister for Justice [2021], Huang v Minister for Justice [2021], and Talukder v Minister for Justice [2021].
