Judgment of Ms. Nimah Hyland. The Court ruled on a case regarding the revocation of the first applicant’s permission of residency in the state, a subsequent review decision, and then a deportation order.
The Applicants sought for the three decisions to be quashed and allow an extension of time to challenge the first two decisions.
The Court ruled that the the first decision cannot be extended as the original application is out of time and no basis exists to extend it. As well, the applicants have failed to identify any grounds to challenge the reasonableness of the deportation order. Thus, they are not entitled to relief.
The Court came to this decision by :
- The Applicants failed to provide sufficient reason for the delay in challenging the respondent’s decision. Ergo, they fail to provide justification to extend the application.
- The argument that the Respondents failed to provide sufficient grounds to prove the submitted material was false is ruled as without merit. The applicant’s submissions were not taken into account initially was due to their solicitors failing to submit them.
- The argument that the Minister should have sought representation was ruled that the Minister has no obligation to do so and the only address listed to contact the second applicant found that they were not there and that the Minister was in the right to investigate if the Applicant’s marriage was one of convenience.
- The Applicant’s argument that the PPS number’s, which was incorrect in the relevant applications, validity was in contention was rejected. Furthermore, the potential grounds for false employment as part of a residency application is enough grounds to warrant an invesitgation by the Minister.
For the Full case:
