Ms Justice Phelan handed down a judgment in the High Court on 22 November 2024 on a judicial review application made by Muhammed Nadeem Ahmed, a Pakistani national who is currently residing in the State, against the Minister for Justice.
The Applicant initially applied for refugee status in 2007. This application was denied due to the Applicant’s use of a false name. The Applicant had also been charged with two motoring offences, the details of one offence was omitted from his refugee application form. The Applicant later applied for a Certificate of Naturalisation, which was rejected based on these motoring offences, non-compliance towards the State, and his failure to meet the condition of good character.
The Applicant appealed this decision, which was again denied, prompting the Applicant to seek judicial review in the High Court. In his submissions, the Applicant defended his use of a false name in his application for refugee status, stating he was mentally distressed at the time. The Applicant also feared that if his application was rejected, he would be forced to return to Pakistan and potentially face persecution. Additionally, the Applicant submitted that it was his solicitor who omitted one motoring offence due to ‘lack of space’ in the relevant section of the application form. The Applicant claimed that he later disclosed this offence during the interview stage of his application.
The Applicant stated that his application for a Certificate of Naturalisation being rejected based on his failure to meet the condition of good character was unfair. The Applicant submitted that his disclosure of the omitted motoring offence during the interview proved he was of good character.
The Respondent submitted that they rejected the Applicant’s Certificate of Naturalisation based on the Applicant’s failure to meet the good character condition. Meeting this condition is fundamental to the certificate being granted. The Respondent argued that the Department of Justice must consider the welfare of the public when assessing applications for citizenship. Additionally, they submitted that members of the public must be reassured that applications for immigration into Ireland have been thoroughly assessed. The Respondent stressed that any offence must be disclosed promptly, and failure to do so creates distrust.
In finding for the Respondent and dismissing the proceedings, Phelan J determined that the Respondent’s decision to reject the Applicant’s application for naturalisation was fair, and that the Respondent is entitled and expected to review each application on a case-by-case basis. Phelan J. accepted that the Minister had correctly balanced both positive and negative factors when assessing the Applicant’s character, and that this balancing exercise was ‘quintessentially a matter for the Minister’. Phelan J determined that the conclusion that the Applicant did not meet the condition of good character was ‘factually sustainable and not unreasonable’.
Finally, Phelan J stated that citizenship is a privilege, not a right, and while the Applicant was entitled to have his application processed in accordance with the law, he had no vested right to a grant of naturalisation at the end of the process.
Click here to read more.