Challenge to Naturalisation refusal

This could be an interesting case to keep an eye on. I'm not sure if it would set any precedents though.

Zimbabwean challenges refusal of citizenship

A YOUNG Zimbabwean man has brought a High Court challenge to the refusal to grant him Irish citizenship on grounds he was not of good character arising from his conviction for drink driving.

Noel Dick (23), Goldsmith Street, Phibsboro, Dublin, yesterday secured permission from Mr Justice Michael Peart to challenge the refusal of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to grant him a certificate of naturalisation.

Mr Dick, who has a four-year-old daughter, said he arrived here as a 15-year-old without his parents or any member of his family. He had not seen his parents since he fled Zimbabwe and had been informed his mother has died, he said. He had been told by his father he has two older brothers whom he has never met, and he also no longer has contact with his father.

Séamus Ó Tuathail SC, for Mr Dick, said his client was granted refugee status a few months after his arrival here in July 2002. He attended Killester College for two years, got a job as a shop assistant in a supermarket and has effectively spent his entire adult life here, counsel said.

Mr Ó Tuathail said Mr Dick applied for a certificate of naturalisation last year but was refused by the Minister.

Mr Ó Tuathail said the refusal contained details of a drink driving charge, which was admitted by Mr Dick. It also referred to two other driving charges – failing to produce insurance and non-display of a valid NCT disc – which were never served on him and nor was he convicted of them.

Source

Tandor wrote:This could be an interesting case to keep an eye on. I'm not sure if it would set any precedents though.

Zimbabwean challenges refusal of citizenship

A YOUNG Zimbabwean man has brought a High Court challenge to the refusal to grant him Irish citizenship on grounds he was not of good character arising from his conviction for drink driving.

Noel Dick (23), Goldsmith Street, Phibsboro, Dublin, yesterday secured permission from Mr Justice Michael Peart to challenge the refusal of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to grant him a certificate of naturalisation.


Mr Dick, who has a four-year-old daughter, said he arrived here as a 15-year-old without his parents or any member of his family. He had not seen his parents since he fled Zimbabwe and had been informed his mother has died, he said. He had been told by his father he has two older brothers whom he has never met, and he also no longer has contact with his father.

Séamus Ó Tuathail SC, for Mr Dick, said his client was granted refugee status a few months after his arrival here in July 2002. He attended Killester College for two years, got a job as a shop assistant in a supermarket and has effectively spent his entire adult life here, counsel said.

Mr Ó Tuathail said Mr Dick applied for a certificate of naturalisation last year but was refused by the Minister.

Mr Ó Tuathail said the refusal contained details of a drink driving charge, which was admitted by Mr Dick. It also referred to two other driving charges – failing to produce insurance and non-display of a valid NCT disc – which were never served on him and nor was he convicted of them.

Source

i highely doubt this case will go all the way to the next hearing. i strongly believe, that this case will settle outside the court and the person will get his citizenship. this man has a reasonably strong case if the last offence took place at least 4-5 years ago and note that he is at this time a refugee would cant return to zimbabwe if he wants to keep his current status. If the case looks weak for the state, they will definitely not run it as it would create precedent, one which the Minister certaintly would not want. If the High Court went against the state, this would definitely go before the supreme court - who quiete possibly side with the state (as they regularly do under the cloak of seperation of powers doctrine)

this is not the first case of this type thats gone before the court, alas, it quiete possibly maybe the first of its type to actually get heard

one way or another, if the case was heard, it would set precedent. there is little or no caselaw in ireland in relation to citizenship - tend to rely on cases from Britain and even australia

Rely on UK?

Well, in uk there is no appeal for naturalisation refusals, hence there is no case law as such at all. I have tried to see if there have been any Judicial Reviews of the naturalisation, but just cant manage to find any information. Even if there was a JR case, it wont be binding on UK govt for every applicant, as naturalisation is at discretion. I would love to hear from someone if they can point me in the right direction to trace any JR outcomes of UK naturalisation refusals.

thanks.

mrlookforward wrote:Rely on UK?

Well, in uk there is no appeal for naturalisation refusals, hence there is no case law as such at all. I have tried to see if there have been any Judicial Reviews of the naturalisation, but just cant manage to find any information. Even if there was a JR case, it wont be binding on UK govt for every applicant, as naturalisation is at discretion. I would love to hear from someone if they can point me in the right direction to trace any JR outcomes of UK naturalisation refusals.

thanks.

Thats right. It is discretion power that Minister has in UK and Ireland. Also, in Australia. I would say pretty much in all the government as well. Perfect example. Just look at Mohamed Al-Fayed. He has been looking for a British Passport for long time. He has not got one. He has all the money in the world and both Conservative and Labour Home Office Secretary turned him down.

It is so un fair in this world eh!

I hope his chap eventually gets his citizenship seeing he appears to have no other major ties outside of Ireland

He would however be best advised to avoid these types of reckless behavior, convicted or not.

Mr Ó Tuathail said the refusal contained details of a drink driving charge, which was admitted by Mr Dick. It also referred to two other driving charges – failing to produce insurance and non-display of a valid NCT disc – which were never served on him and nor was he convicted of them.

.

Being a refugee is no excuse for bad behavior.

mktsoi wrote:

mrlookforward wrote:Rely on UK?

Well, in uk there is no appeal for naturalisation refusals, hence there is no case law as such at all. I have tried to see if there have been any Judicial Reviews of the naturalisation, but just cant manage to find any information. Even if there was a JR case, it wont be binding on UK govt for every applicant, as naturalisation is at discretion. I would love to hear from someone if they can point me in the right direction to trace any JR outcomes of UK naturalisation refusals.

thanks.

Thats right. It is discretion power that Minister has in UK and Ireland. Also, in Australia. I would say pretty much in all the government as well. Perfect example. Just look at Mohamed Al-Fayed. He has been looking for a British Passport for long time. He has not got one. He has all the money in the world and both Conservative and Labour Home Office Secretary turned him down.

It is so un fair in this world eh!

Mohammed Al Fayed , refusal. Do you understand why he was refused?.


And no not because of his recent stance on the that family in London. Arms dealers anyone ro the couple of arrests regardind allegations to fraud (in fairness he got off) or bringing the police into disrupt for a failed court cases against the police, or cash for questions to MP's ? Money does not buy class.Incidently, he brought a Judicial Review case in England. I will get a transcript when I can. So in this case, it was not unfair to give him citizenship despite his wealth and money he raised etc in Britian. Could count himself lucky he was tolerated in the UK for so long.

walrusgumble wrote:

mktsoi wrote:

mrlookforward wrote:Rely on UK?

Well, in uk there is no appeal for naturalisation refusals, hence there is no case law as such at all. I have tried to see if there have been any Judicial Reviews of the naturalisation, but just cant manage to find any information. Even if there was a JR case, it wont be binding on UK govt for every applicant, as naturalisation is at discretion. I would love to hear from someone if they can point me in the right direction to trace any JR outcomes of UK naturalisation refusals.

thanks.

Thats right. It is discretion power that Minister has in UK and Ireland. Also, in Australia. I would say pretty much in all the government as well. Perfect example. Just look at Mohamed Al-Fayed. He has been looking for a British Passport for long time. He has not got one. He has all the money in the world and both Conservative and Labour Home Office Secretary turned him down.

It is so un fair in this world eh!

Mohammed Al Fayed , refusal. Do you understand why he was refused?.


And no not because of his recent stance on the that family in London. Arms dealers anyone ro the couple of arrests regardind allegations to fraud (in fairness he got off) or bringing the police into disrupt for a failed court cases against the police, or cash for questions to MP's ? Money does not buy class.Incidently, he brought a Judicial Review case in England. I will get a transcript when I can. So in this case, it was not unfair to give him citizenship despite his wealth and money he raised etc in Britian. Could count himself lucky he was tolerated in the UK for so long.

Look, I was referring to the unfair discretion power that Minister has. Money does buy class at some stage. Look at the famous Hindujas brothers and Peter Mandelson's case. Dont tell me that Hindujas brother are any better than Al-fayed. Take a closer look in Ireland itself. Remember that Mr McDowell Passport for sale scheme was in Ireland years ago. I am agreed with you in some way. Yes money cannot buy everything but it helps in someway.

mktsoi wrote:

walrusgumble wrote:

mktsoi wrote:

mrlookforward wrote:Rely on UK?

Well, in uk there is no appeal for naturalisation refusals, hence there is no case law as such at all. I have tried to see if there have been any Judicial Reviews of the naturalisation, but just cant manage to find any information. Even if there was a JR case, it wont be binding on UK govt for every applicant, as naturalisation is at discretion. I would love to hear from someone if they can point me in the right direction to trace any JR outcomes of UK naturalisation refusals.

thanks.

Thats right. It is discretion power that Minister has in UK and Ireland. Also, in Australia. I would say pretty much in all the government as well. Perfect example. Just look at Mohamed Al-Fayed. He has been looking for a British Passport for long time. He has not got one. He has all the money in the world and both Conservative and Labour Home Office Secretary turned him down.

It is so un fair in this world eh!

Mohammed Al Fayed , refusal. Do you understand why he was refused?.


And no not because of his recent stance on the that family in London. Arms dealers anyone ro the couple of arrests regardind allegations to fraud (in fairness he got off) or bringing the police into disrupt for a failed court cases against the police, or cash for questions to MP's ? Money does not buy class.Incidently, he brought a Judicial Review case in England. I will get a transcript when I can. So in this case, it was not unfair to give him citizenship despite his wealth and money he raised etc in Britian. Could count himself lucky he was tolerated in the UK for so long.

Look, I was referring to the unfair discretion power that Minister has. Money does buy class at some stage. Look at the famous Hindujas brothers and Peter Mandelson's case. Dont tell me that Hindujas brother are any better than Al-fayed. Take a closer look in Ireland itself. Remember that Mr McDowell Passport for sale scheme was in Ireland years ago. I am agreed with you in some way. Yes money cannot buy everything but it helps in someway.

I am simply replying to your example, Mohammed Al Fayed. By using him as an example, I have presumed that you are using him as an example of how unfair this discretion is. Now you can correct me if that presumption is wrong or confirm whether or not it was your intention to use Al Fayed as an example. If I am correct, then you will see, by the examples given, he could not be said to have acted impecably over the years, regardless of what he brought to Britain, and dare I say, English Football.

Mr McDowell Passport Scheme? The scheme that you are referring to did not occur whilst McDowell was in Power. You are referring to the period of 1988-1994. That scheme, was novle and had the potential of being an excellent idea on paper - ie reward those who have heavily contributed into Irish society when Ireland was showing signs of economic growth. However, being the nature of the nod and wink environment of Irish politics and the characters of some of those who got the passports, it was doomed. If people were clean, there was nothing really too wrong with it, provided that the receiptant would abide by IRish law and act respectively as an Irish citizen.

Your are right about the Mandelson matter and the apparent hypcrosy, but did those lads bring / attempted to bring English Establishments like the Crown and Police into disrepute?Who were Mandy's friends anyway? What has it got to do with Ireland?

How is it unfair, under an Irish situation. You are told to be of good character. Good character means not getting into any trouble, regardless of conviction or being acquitted (on road traffic matters that is or minor offences on basis of technicality). You are also required to have resided in the State for 60 months (or least if a refugee and or married to Irish citizen), you are also required to self sufficent for at least 3 years before making application (i would imagine refugees would be treated more fairly). Once you meet these requirements, its unlikely one will be refused. Have you ever heard anyone being refused before after meeting these requirements?

Good character, now that one is open for interpretation, particularily if the crime was committed 4-5 years ago. But it is crystal clear from the Minister that good character means absolutely no criminal offences or appearances before a criminal court answering to charges. In case you have not realised, Road Traffic Crimes and Offences are taken rather seriously here (obviously not for those who constantly drink drive and speed etc) It is the cause of too many needless deaths. Failure to pay your tax and insurance, deprives the State of income, its akin to stealing and its dishonest when there is an intentional failure to be insured whilst driving. You get behind a wheel, you owe a duty of care to yourself, passengers and anyone else who uses the road. THere are no excuses for not having your seat belt on, not insuring that your car has passed the NCT test, no excuse for speeding etc.

None of those matters use the Minister discretion. They are not arbitary as its well known policy, as provided by legislation. If you are deemed not to be of good character, then you fail. End of. Unless you have good reasons to get citizenship then you fail. THere is no use of discretion there.

However, depending on the circumstances of the cases, like the one above, the legislation provides that the Minister may waive certain criterias. To anyone, that is a clear indiciation of the Minister having power to use his discretion in the persons favour. Examples such as refugee status and strong Irish family links may greatly help. So hardly use of unfair discretion is it?

THe Minister, in any country, is expected to maintain the intergrity of its citizenship laws. If people of any particular country found out that immigrants were getting citizenship despite having previous criminal record in those states, how do you think the people would react?

It goes back to the principle, citizenship is not a right but a priviledge and in order to obtain that priviledge, its not enough to have a couple of quid and simply reside in the state long enough (or how I put it, collect 12 crisp packets to get your prize), there are further conditions to comply with.

Cheeky so and so. He committed a crime, ergo he should be deported with haste.

There are a few loop holes put in the Irish legislation for the boys in the club.

Spouse of Public (or even ex-Public) servants are exempt from the resident requirements.

But for Ordinary Irish Citizens and their family, In addition, the Minister
must be satisfied that Irish family “intends in good faith to
reside in the island of Ireland after naturalisationâ€

[quote="acme4242"]There are a few loop holes put in the Irish legislation for the boys in the club.

Spouse of Public (or even ex-Public) servants are exempt from the resident requirements.

But for Ordinary Irish Citizens and their family, In addition, the Minister
must be satisfied that Irish family “intends in good faith to
reside in the island of Ireland after naturalisationâ€

First, thank you walrusgumble, for the useful link, its very relevant to this thread. Its interesting the bit about Ministerial discretion and its limits.
http://eudo-citizenship.eu/docs/Country ... reland.pdf





The Italian law states, read it >here< that spouses of Italian citizens can apply for citizenship after two years of marriage if a couple is living in Italy and after three years of marriage if they are living abroad. Reduced respectively to one year and one and a half-year if the couple has a child.

Post-Nuptial Citizenship to families living abroad is generally given by countries with a strong emigration history.
Ireland had 10 years of a bubble based on borrowed money, and this lead them to end supporting Irish Emigrants and their family.

As regards concerns about abuse, and marriage of convenience, again I make the point the Irish Government has not made such abuse a punishable offense, instead they imposed draconian laws to remove the privilages of Irish Families and impose reverse discrimination against Irish Citizens and their family.
This is not an appropriate response to gossip of abuse. Not even a ball park figure of such abuse cases was given, it was all conjecture. Used by the Irish authority to increase their authority, at the expense of the little man and genuine families (except Public Servants)

There was a notable case in 1987 in an Irish Embassy in London. The staff where selling Irish passports on the British Market under the post-nuptial scheme, and inserting fake paperwork. An Irish Official was convicted of fraud and given a custodial sentence in the UK(was jail in UK or Ireland?) However this caused a lot of embarrassment to the Government.
But instead of going after the corrupt Irish Officials, the Government decided to attack genuine Irish families, both at home and abroad. Using this abuse by Irish Embassy staff as a reason to remove the post-nuptial citizenship from ordinary Irish families.

John O'Donoghue wrote: I am certainly not saying any other embassy official is involved in that case However, I am saying that such cases are still arising and the truth is that, like it or not, the extent of the fraud will never be fully known.

The excuse, its to combat abuse and marriage of convenience has been used at every introduction of draconian law, the media has swallowed and regurgitated it.
But when you look at the fact that such abuse has not even been made a criminal offense in itself, but the suspicion of it, allows the introduction of further draconian law, you see the government game plan.

Its probably written in crayon on the Minister for Justice desk,
'Keep it simple, and always repeat this excuse "its to combat abuse and bogus marriages" but never directly make such abuse a crime, therefore you can reuse this excuse again and again"

acme4242 wrote:First, thank you walrusgumble, for the useful link, its very relevant to this thread. Its interesting the bit about Ministerial discretion and its limits.
http://eudo-citizenship.eu/docs/Country ... reland.pdf





The Italian law states, read it >here< that spouses of Italian citizens can apply for citizenship after two years of marriage if a couple is living in Italy and after three years of marriage if they are living abroad. Reduced respectively to one year and one and a half-year if the couple has a child.

Post-Nuptial Citizenship to families living abroad is generally given by countries with a strong emigration history.
Ireland had 10 years of a bubble based on borrowed money, and this lead them to end supporting Irish Emigrants and their family.

As regards concerns about abuse, and marriage of convenience, again I make the point the Irish Government has not made such abuse a punishable offense, instead they imposed draconian laws to remove the privilages of Irish Families and impose reverse discrimination against Irish Citizens and their family.
This is not an appropriate response to gossip of abuse. Not even a ball park figure of such abuse cases was given, it was all conjecture. Used by the Irish authority to increase their authority, at the expense of the little man and genuine families (except Public Servants)

There was a notable case in 1987 in an Irish Embassy in London. The staff where selling Irish passports on the British Market under the post-nuptial scheme, and inserting fake paperwork. An Irish Official was convicted of fraud and given a custodial sentence in the UK(was jail in UK or Ireland?) However this caused a lot of embarrassment to the Government.
But instead of going after the corrupt Irish Officials, the Government decided to attack genuine Irish families, both at home and abroad. Using this abuse by Irish Embassy staff as a reason to remove the post-nuptial citizenship from ordinary Irish families.

John O'Donoghue wrote: I am certainly not saying any other embassy official is involved in that case However, I am saying that such cases are still arising and the truth is that, like it or not, the extent of the fraud will never be fully known.

The excuse, its to combat abuse and marriage of convenience has been used at every introduction of draconian law, the media has swallowed and regurgitated it.
But when you look at the fact that such abuse has not even been made a criminal offense in itself, but the suspicion of it, allows the introduction of further draconian law, you see the government game plan.

Its probably written in crayon on the Minister for Justice desk,
'Keep it simple, and always repeat this excuse "its to combat abuse and bogus marriages" but never directly make such abuse a crime, therefore you can reuse this excuse again and again"

Yes the Mishra case, thats the case I am referring to. In that case, the Minister was pretty much refusing all applications made by Doctors, after consulting with the Iris medicial body. THe concern was that figures showed an overwhelming evidence that they then leave and barely ever come back. The applicant was refused because he could not show evidence of future intention to reside. This, however, was absolute nonsense as the application form itself and documents provided, showed that he had being clearly living in Ireland for years and that his family, most who were Irish, were well settled into Irish life. He won on the basis that the Minister failed to raise any of his concerns to the applicant and allow the applicant a chance to answer - fair procedures and natural justice.

So ye, discretion still is required to provide reason and must not be arbitary. In reality, if you meet the criteria, it will be very hard for Minister to say no. I would be very very very surprise if the above case from original post, did not have citizenship by now, for reasons that are obvious and reasons i previously outlined.


With regard to marriage of convenience, well first off, if a marrige is a marriage of convenience, then the marriage is void ab initio and no marriage existed therefore, no rights obtained. I would agree fully. From the tone of your attitude towards the Irish Ministers, you either are an Irish born or a very long term citizen, who has experienced the joys of Dermot Morgan's Scrap Saturday. Good call on the crayons btw.

The marriage of convenience theory, i kind of my theory, so I can't state why these occurred with full accuracy. Only the dail debates or talking to someone with more experience could tell you. But I would be quiet certain that the rise of applications would also have something to do with it. They would at least be expected to have spent some time in Ireland like spouse who marry Irish citizens in Ireland. THe discrimination is justified. There is no such thing as a free lunch. When I can I will try and post up a transcript of that high court case, to give some idea of the Minister's position.

As for what went on in the 1980's. Yeah, fair point, but look who was Taoiseach. The 1980's Ireland was trying to do anything to get business into the country. Anyone remember the fella who build the de Loren car (sweet mother of jesus) Sure it would not shock me in the least that TD's, never mind Ministers, pocketed from these transactions, oh the friendly neighbourhood TD. Why would the politicans go after the staff? Sure it happened on their watch, sure they would end up with the finger pointed at them for allow such practices from occuring.