No error in decision finding a marriage to be one of convenience for citizenship purposes

Court of Appeal - Directive 2004/38/EC - European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) Regulations of 2015 (SI No. 548/2015) - procedural requirements when permission to reside refused - Directive 2004/38/EC - transposed by European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) Regulations of 2015 (SI No. 548/2015) - applicant's marriage to EU citizen disregarded in citizenship application - argued refusal and revocation of residence card not in accordance with law - said onus placed on him to prove validity - no interview took place - 25th July, 2018 - Minister's decision - 12th November, 2021 - earlier decision affirmed - 24th October, 2022 - Ferriter J. refused order of certiorari - appeal against entirety of judgment - 10th September, 2006 - first named applicant Indian national entered state - Stamp 2 permission granted until 12th September, 2012 - second named applicant EU national - lived and worked in Ireland since October 2011 - February 2012 - first and second named applicants meet - April 2012 - began residing together - 19th September, 2012 - they married - 10th April, 2013 - first named applicant granted residence card for five years - 31st August, 2017 - applied for renewal - 1st February, 2018 - interviewed by Garda National Immigration Bureau - made admissions regarding marriage and other relationship - 26th March, 2018 - Minister wrote to say application being refused - 20th April, 2018 - reply via solicitor - first named applicant said fast pace of marriage was because family didn't like them living together while unmarried - 25th July, 2018 - refusal - marriage took place seven days after visa expiry - suspicion it was of convenience - April 2013 permission invalid from the outset - sought special scheme for students - 22nd December, 2020 - review sought through new firm of solicitors - 16th August, 2021 - supplemental representations - said heightened onus on Minister where criminal offence alleged - 12th November, 2021 - informed of reasons why review unsuccessful - child with third party - argued no fair procedures where no oral interview, burden of proof misapplied and lack of proper engagement with submissions - Ferriter J. found no error of law - correct burden - engaged with all submissions - not discussing specific material doesn't mean it wasn't considered - same grounds argued on appeal - process incorporated Articles 30 and 31 - subsequent affidavit denying interview admissions exhibited no evidence - Minister correct to give weight to objective factors - no unlawful shifting of burden of proof - little evidence of genuineness of marriage put before court - no unlawful reversal of burden of proof - legal basis clear - procedural safeguards observed - not enough evidence provided to rebut interview allegations - did not request interview - did not establish failure to engage with case either - constitutional injustice not established - application refused - costs to Minister but submissions welcome.