No substantial grounds to challenge orders to deport two individuals found to have entered marriages of convenience

Judicial review – asylum and immigration – leave applications - European law - free movement of persons – marriages of convenience - abuse of rights - Member States may adopt the necessary measures to refuse, terminate or withdraw any right conferred by this Directive in the case of abuse of rights or fraud, such as marriages of convenience – two cases – first applicant resided in the state pursuant to a student permission - when his permission was about to expire, he entered into what the Minister has held to have been a marriage of convenience with a Latvian woman - sought permission to remain in the State on the basis of alleged EU Treaty Rights arising from the marriage - initially approved - residence card was revoked - noted that the Latvian woman in question had been residing permanently in Latvia - receipt of a number of benefits in Latvia including jobseeker’s benefits - applicant had failed to notify the Department of this change in his circumstances - Minister had outlined her concerns in writing but the responses received to date have been minimal and failed to address the Minister’s concerns that the marriage was contracted for the sole purpose of obtaining a residence card - permission to remain by virtue of EU Treaty Rights was therefore revoked - Minister made a deportation order – brought a judicial review to challenge the deportation order - submits that he can only be removed from the State in accordance with art. 27 of the directive and reg. 20 of the regulations by way of removal order, and not on foot of a deportation order – second applicant resided in the state pursuant to student permissions – when permission expired and illegally present in the State, she married an EU national - applied for permission to remain in the State on the basis of EU Treaty rights – refused - employment information provided in respect of the applicant’s EU spouse was false and the applicant “knowingly submitted information which is false and misleading as to a material fact” which if sustained meant that she had “committed fraud” - EU spouse had left the applicant, without a forwarding address - deportation order was made – judicial review proceedings issued - deportation order was made - application to amend to incorporate Court of Appeal decision on the extent to which art. 8 rights should be considered in a decision on permissions under the Immigration Act 2004 – application brought after two months – Court found that the application to amend was improperly made but even if it had been properly made it is lacking in substance or merit - applications arise out of a gross abuse of immigration law and of the rights of third parties - unchallenged determinations that the applicants entered into marriages of convenience - technical, jurisdictional challenges to deportation orders whose factual premises depend on prior, unchallenged, decisions to withdraw directive rights - applicants have to live with the Minister’s conclusions for the purposes of these proceedings - marriages of convenience - legal action designed to enforce “rights” deriving from a marriage of convenience is an affront to the court and makes a mockery of the constitutional commitments to legality, human rights, and to marriage and the family – discretion of a court in EU law matters - directive itself provides for refusal or termination of rights where abuse has occurred - absence of submissions is fatal to review of the ultimate decision - a national rule contrary to EU law is not automatically invalid; rather one looks to see whether the rule can be construed in an EU-compatible manner - where a person’s rights have been refused or withdrawn under art. 35 of the directive due to a marriage of convenience or other abuse of rights, substantial grounds have not been shown to suggest that such a person is validly exercising EU treaty right - no substantial grounds to contend that there is a breach of EU law in expelling such persons by way of deportation order rather than removal order - inevitable consequence of the refusal, termination or withdrawal of all directive rights where an abuse envisaged by art. 35 applies - no substantial grounds have been shown to contradict the view that any challenge to such refusal or withdrawal decision must be in accordance with national procedures.