Mahmud v Minister for Justice

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Barry O'Donnell
• Judgment Date: 24 June 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 356
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: Record No. 2024/215JR

Between

Saadh Mahmud

Applicant

and

Minister for Justice

Respondent

[2025] IEHC 356

Record No. 2024/215JR

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Judicial review – Residence card – Marriage of convenience – Applicant seeking to quash the respondent’s decision to revoke his permanent residence card – Whether the respondent provided adequate reasons

Facts: The applicant, Mr Mahmud, a Bangladeshi citizen, obtained a residence card on the basis of his marriage to a Portuguese citizen (Ms. D). The applicant applied to the High Court by way of judicial review seeking to quash a decision by the respondent, the Minister for Justice (the Minister), to revoke his permanent residence card pursuant to the terms of the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) Regulations 2015. The applicant highlighted an apparent inconsistency in the Minister relying on the information from the DEASP which showed some, albeit minimal, social protection contributions up to 2017 and the finding that there was no evidence that Ms D resided in the State after 1 February 2015. The applicant also argued that there was a “high bar” for a finding of a marriage of convenience and that the threshold had not been met in this case. The applicant argued that the Minister had focussed primarily on the question of whether Ms D was exercising treaty rights during her time in the State, rather than on the separate question of whether the marriage was one of convenience. In that connection, it was submitted that the Minister had predicated the finding of a marriage of convenience on the finding that the applicant had submitted false and misleading information and documents relating to the exercise of treaty rights. The applicant argued that the Minister did not provide adequate reasons for the decision that the marriage was one of convenience. The applicant relied on the reasoning of Ferriter J in RA v Minister for Justice [2022] IEHC 378, and argued that the Minister had not specifically identified specific material or information that was suggested to be false or misleading. In addition, it was argued that the reasons given for the finding that the marriage was one of convenience were inadequate. The applicant argued that there was some circularity to the Minister’s reasoning as to some extent the finding on that issue appeared to be predicated on the general finding that the applicant had submitted false or misleading documents or information.

Held by O’Donnell J that the finding that the applicant submitted false and misleading information in this case flowed logically from the prior finding that the Minister was not satisfied that there was adequate evidence that Ms D was residing and exercising her EU treaty rights in the State after 1 February 2015. O’Donnell J held that this finding was clearly sustainable. O’Donnell J held that the consequent finding - that insofar as the applicant was attempting to persuade the Minister otherwise, that attempt was an attempt to mislead the Minister - flowed from the prior finding, which itself was grounded in a sufficient engagement with the objective evidence. Moreover, O’Donnell J held that, unlike the situation in RA, there was no basis for finding that the Minister had failed to engage with the evidence and submissions from the applicant.

O’Donnell J made an order refusing the application for relief.

Application refused.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Barry O'Donnell delivered on the 24 ^th day of June, 2025

INTRODUCTION

1 . This judgment is concerned with an application by way of judicial review in which the applicant seeks to quash a decision by the Minister to revoke his permanent residence card pursuant to the terms of the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) Regulations 2015 ( the 2015 Regulations). The 2015 Regulations give effect to Directive 2004/38/ EC ( the Directive). The Directive provides for the right of all EU citizens to move freely within the territory of the Member States, and provides for the extension of that right to family members of the EU citizen irrespective the family member's nationality. In this case, the applicant who is a Bangladeshi citizen had obtained a residence card on the basis of his marriage to a Portuguese citizen, Ms. D.

2 . As explained in more detail below, the applicant's residence card was revoked following his disclosure that the marriage had ended and consequent inquiries by the Minister's officials. Ultimately the Minister made two findings. First, that the applicant had submitted information and documents that he knew to be misleading in order to obtain a derived right of free movement and residence to which he was not otherwise entitled, which was stated to be an abuse of rights for the purposes of regulation 27 of the 2015 Regulations. Second, there was a finding that the marriage to Ms. D was a marriage of convenience for the purposes of regulation 28 of the 2015 Regulations.

3 . For the reasons set out in this judgment, I have concluded that the application should be refused on the basis that the decision was lawful in the sense that the findings flowed cogently from the evidence that was considered and that the decision was adequately reasoned.

BACKGROUND

4 . The essential facts relating to the application are taken from the grounding affidavit sworn by the applicant and from documents that were submitted to the Minister, and which were exhibited in the proceedings.

5 . Briefly stated, the applicant asserted that he was born in 1986 and is a citizen of the People's Republic of Bangladesh. The applicant first entered in the State in January 2007 on a student permission which was renewed from time to time. He met his future wife in early 2013 through a mutual friend and they developed a relationship. For cultural and religious reasons, he would not have an intimate relationship with a woman outside of marriage and, as the relationship deepened, he asked her to marry him. The marriage occurred on the 24 June 2013. In August 2013, he applied for a residence card as a qualifying family member based on marriage. That application was approved on the 22 January 2014.

6 . The applicant goes on to explain that unhappy differences arose in his marriage, which became worse in 2018. He stated that Ms D. returned to Portugal on what he believed to be a temporary basis to visit her family. In late 2018, Ms. D made clear that she would not be returning to Ireland. The applicant stated that Ms. D became pregnant while in Portugal by another man and this caused the ultimate breakdown of the marriage. He stated that he instructed his solicitors to inform the Minister of his change in circumstances and to seek to regularise his position in the State. Prior to the first instance decision there was an exchange of correspondence and documents which framed the matters in dispute.

CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE MINISTER

7 . The applicant's solicitors wrote to the respondent on the 17 December 2018 seeking an alternative permission for allowing him to live and work in the State. By a separate letter dated the 18 December 2018, his solicitors wrote to the EU Treaty Rights division of the respondent informing the respondent of the breakdown of his marriage.

Applicant's letter of the 17 December 2018

8 . The letter of the 17 December 2018 sought permission to remain in the State pursuant to s. 4(1) and/or s. 4(7) of the Immigration Act 2004. The letter is relevant to this action insofar as it addresses matters relating to his relationship with Ms. D. In the part of the letter detailing family relationships within the State, the letter asserts that he remains in close contact with his brother-in-law, and notes that Ms. D had been in Ireland in July 2018 and November 2018. The applicant was under the impression that Ms. D was going to return to live in Ireland, but it became clear by December 2018 that she wished to remain in Portugal. The letter also noted that the applicant was the owner and director of certain businesses and employed nine people. The letter noted that prior to opening his own business the applicant had been employed in a hotel from 2007 to January 2015. The letter states that the applicant was capable of meeting all his own financial needs and certain accounts and evidence of earnings were attached.

9 . The letter attached a large number of documents that were said to be supportive of his application. It can be noted that one of the documents attached was a letter from a firm of estate agents dated the 5 July 2018, which confirmed that the applicant and another person — not Ms. D — were renting a particular property in Waterford under an agreement which was to be in place for the next twelve months. The letter notes that the original lease commenced on the 2 February 2015. A residential tenancy agreement is exhibited which is dated the 6 June 2015 and which identifies the applicant himself as the tenant of the property.

Applicant's letter of the 18 December 2018

10 . The letter of the 18 December 2018, to the Minister's EU Treaty Rights section, states that the solicitors had been instructed to communicate that there had been a material change in the relationship circumstances of the applicant. The description of the change in circumstances was set out as follows:-

“The EU citizen herein is no longer living in Ireland. She was last here in November 2018 but Mr. Mahmud instructs that she will not be coming back to Ireland. She was in Ireland also in July 2018. She has been coming over and back but now her base is in Portugal. She has worked intermittently in Ireland but primarily was supported by Mr. Mahmud when their relationship was on good terms. She has been saying that she would move back to Ireland. They have been having an ‘on/off’ relationship for several years. The EU citizen had a new baby 3 months ago and Mr Mahmud is not the father.”

The Minister's letter of the 15 February...