VM v The Minister for Justice

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr Justice Conleth Bradley
• Judgment Date: 21 October 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 574
• Docket Number: Record No. 2024/405JR

Between/

VM

Applicant

and

The Minister for Justice

Respondent

[2025] IEHC 574

Record No. 2024/405JR

AN ARD-CHÚIRT

THE HIGH COURT

Judicial review – Residence permission – Regularisation of Long-Term Undocumented Migrants Scheme – Applicant seeking judicial review – Whether the applicant had complied with the criteria for assessing residency set out in the Regularisation of Long-Term Undocumented Migrants Scheme

Facts: The respondent, the Minister for Justice (the Minister), on 1 December 2023, decided to refuse the applicant a residence permission under the terms of the Regularisation of Long-Term Undocumented Migrants Scheme (the scheme). The applicant was granted leave to apply for judicial review on 13 May 2024 by order of the High Court (Hyland J). There was no challenge to the terms of the scheme itself and the jurisprudence which applies to the discretion which the Minister exercises in the making of an ex gratia scheme such as the one at issue in this case was accepted on behalf of the applicant. The applicant’s central contention was, rather, that she had in fact complied with the criteria for assessing residency set out in the scheme and that the Minister applied the criteria too strictly and, therefore, erroneously.

Held by Bradley J that the applicant’s name and address were not on the copy transfers furnished and relied upon by the applicant for each of the years 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 notwithstanding that it was the applicant who chose the category of criteria which required “proof of money transfers between the applicant and a third party, carried out at money transfer facility in the State e.g. Western union” as the method to prove her continuous residency in the State for each of the four years immediately prior to the opening of the scheme in 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021. Bradley J found that none of the examples of what were described, on behalf of the applicant as corroborative letters, or the documents submitted between 2010 to 2018, were of assistance to the applicant in meeting the failure to meet the stated criteria.

Bradley J refused the applicant’s application for the reliefs claimed by way of judicial review.

Application refused.

APPEARANCES

82. Anthony Hanrahan SC and Siobhán Clabby BL appeared for the Applicant instructed by Daly Lynch Crowe & Morris Solicitors LLP

83. Sarah Cooney BL appeared for the Respondent instructed by the Chief State Solicitor's Office

REDACTED

JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Conleth Bradley delivered on the 21 ^st day of October 2025

INTRODUCTION

Preliminary

1 These proceedings concern the decision of the Minister for Justice (“the Minister” or the “Respondent”) dated 1 ^st December 2023 to refuse the Applicant a residence permission under the terms of the Regularisation of Long-Term Undocumented Migrants Scheme (“the scheme”).

2 The Applicant is a national of Zimbabwe and at the time of these proceedings was approximately 56 years of age. She has three adult children who are aged between 30 and 40 years of age and who reside in Zimbabwe (MM (born 1984), CM (born 1987) and ZM (born 1992)). The Applicant lived with their children's father BM in Zimbabwe between 1984 to 1997 (until he married another woman) and he subsequently died in 2016.

3 The Applicant entered the State in July 2010 and she states that she has never left the State since her arrival. She states that she was subject to employment exploitation in Ireland between July 2010 and January 2012 until she received assistance and from that time the Applicant states that she has resided undocumented in Ireland with a number of families, performing largely housekeeping, cleaning and cooking duties and being paid cash.

4 It is common case that the Applicant has never received permission to reside or work in Ireland since her arrival in the State and that she has never had any engagement with any of State agency and therefore has no official record of actual living in Ireland such as, for example, a utility bill, bank account, medical card or PRSI number.

5 There is no challenge to the terms of the scheme itself and the jurisprudence which applies to the discretion which the Minister exercises in the making of an ex gratia scheme such as the one at issue in this case is accepted on behalf of the Applicant. The Applicant's central contention is, rather, that she has in fact complied with the criteria for assessing residency set out in the scheme and that the Minister applied the criteria too strictly and, therefore, erroneously.

The proceedings

6 The Applicant's Statement of Grounds is dated 21 ^st March 2024 and is grounded on the Affidavit of VM sworn on 20 ^th March 2024 and the Affidavit of Albert Llussà Solicitor, on behalf of the Applicant, is sworn on 20 ^th March 2024. The Applicant was granted leave to apply for judicial review on 13 ^th May 2024 by order of the High Court (Hyland J.).

7 The Minister's Statement of Opposition is dated 25 ^th November 2024 and is grounded on the Affidavit of Mary Kelly, Higher Executive Officer in the Domestic Residence and Permission Division of the Department of Justice, which was sworn on 9 ^th December 2024.

8 The Applicant takes particular issue, for example, with paragraphs 8 and 12 of the Statement of Opposition.

9 The Statement of Opposition at paragraph 8 inter alia states that the Minister “ was entitled to apply the terms of the Scheme with respect to the proof of residency requirement”, and in this regard, that the Minister “ was not obliged to consider the Applicant's alleged residency in the State between 2010 and 2018” and that it is “ an untenable proposition, as a matter of law and/or fact, that purported proof of residency in the State between 2010 and 2018 could prove, without more, residency in the State from 2018 to 2022”.

10 The Statement of Opposition at paragraph 12 inter alia denies that the Minister “ made a fundamental error of fact and/or failed to take into account relevant considerations in relation to the finding that the Applicant had not submitted Western Union or alternative financial transfers from the State to her children.” It states that the Minister “ fully considered the representations made by the Applicant's solicitor in relation to the claim that the Applicant's friend made the transfers on the Applicant's behalf” and “ was entitled to find however that while affidavits can support an application, they are not acceptable proofs in [and] of themselves. There was no evidence submitted to show that the Applicant had made any financial transfers to her children from the State, as the Respondent was entitled to find”.

11 The Applicant also refers to the confirmation by Ms. Kelly, at paragraphs 7 and 8 of her Affidavit, sworn on 9 ^th December 2024, that 14 documents (set out later in this judgment) and referred to as examples of acceptable proofs for residency in the Department's policy paper were also described as not being “ exhaustive”: “ (8) While the above was not an exhaustive list, the Minister was entitled to expect sufficient and satisfactory evidential proof as to identity and residence in the State for the relevant period. The Policy Paper also stated that: “ Note[ 1]: Letters from friends/neighbours will not be accepted as the only proof of residency

in the State. These documents along with other unverifiable material may be submitted as supporting documentation only””.

12 The Respondent indicated that no time issue was being maintained in its opposition to the Applicant's application for relief by way of judicial review application.

THE SCHEME

Residency Requirements of the Scheme

13 As mentioned, no issue is made in these proceedings as to the entitlement of the Minister to introduce such a time-limited scheme or to the objectives or scope of the scheme.

14 The scheme was an administrative one established under the Minister's executive powers which sought to regularise the status of long-term undocumented migrants residing in the State for a 6-month period from 31 ^st January 2022 to 31 ^st July 2022.

15 The objectives and scope of the scheme were described in paragraph 3.1 of the policy paper entitled ‘ Policy Paper on the Scheme to Regularise Long-term Undocumented Migrants in Ireland’ (exhibited in the Affidavit of Mary Kelly) as having been “ developed to provide residence permission to persons who are living in Ireland, and have been doing so for a long period of time without a valid residence permission in the State, irrespective of how they entered the State initially, and are therefore considered to be “long-term undocumented”. The Scheme is aimed at alleviating the particular challenges faced by those who have been “undocumented” for a long period and who face challenges in integrating into society and maintaining labour market mobility.”

16 No issue arises in these proceedings as to the identity of the Applicant. The challenge, rather, focuses on the issue of proof of residency which was described at paragraph (1.3) of the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) document produced by the Immigration Service Delivery ( ISD) in the following terms “ Please be aware that you must be able to provide evidence that you have been living undocumented in the State for a continuous basis for the previous four years, prior to the commencement date of the scheme 31 January 2022, and continue to reside in the State undocumented from this date up to, and including, the date on which you submit your application”.

17 Thus, the requirement for an applicant is to show that they have been living undocumented in the State on a continuous basis for each of the 4 years commencing from 31 ^st January 2018 to 31 ^st January 2022, i.e., 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 and up to, and including, the date on which the application was submitted, in the Applicant's case, this was 6 ^th July 2022, being the date being when her application was made under cover of letter from her solicitors...