High Court dismisses judicial review as Minister correctly refused residence permission due to lack of continuous residency proof.

APPROVED

REDACTED

AN ARD-CHÚIRT

THE HIGH COURT

[2025] IEHC 574

Record No. 2024/405JR

BETWEEN/

VM

APPLICANT

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE

RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Conleth Bradley delivered on the 21st day of October 2025

INTRODUCTION

Preliminary

1. These proceedings concern the decision of the Minister for Justice (“the Minister” or the “Respondent”) dated 1st December 2023 to refuse the Applicant a residence permission under the terms of the Regularisation of Long-Term Undocumented Migrants Scheme (“the scheme”).

2. The Applicant is a national of Zimbabwe and at the time of these proceedings was approximately 56 years of age. She has three adult children who are aged between 30 and 40 years of age and who reside in Zimbabwe (MM (born 1984), CM (born 1987) and ZM (born 1992)). The Applicant lived with their children’s father BM in Zimbabwe between 1984 to 1997 (until he married another woman) and he subsequently died in 2016.

3. The Applicant entered the State in July 2010 and she states that she has never left the State since her arrival. She states that she was subject to employment exploitation in Ireland between July 2010 and January 2012 until she received assistance and from that time the Applicant states that she has resided undocumented in Ireland with a number of families, performing largely housekeeping, cleaning and cooking duties and being paid cash.

4. It is common case that the Applicant has never received permission to reside or work in Ireland since her arrival in the State and that she has never had any engagement with any of State agency and therefore has no official record of actual living in Ireland such as, for example, a utility bill, bank account, medical card or PRSI number.

5. There is no challenge to the terms of the scheme itself and the jurisprudence which applies to the discretion which the Minister exercises in the making of an ex gratia scheme such as the one at issue in this case is accepted on behalf of the Applicant. The Applicant’s central contention is, rather, that she has in fact complied with the criteria for assessing residency set out in the scheme and that the Minister applied the criteria too strictly and, therefore, erroneously.

The proceedings

6. The Applicant’s Statement of Grounds is dated 21st March 2024 and is grounded on the Affidavit of VM sworn on 20th March 2024 and the Affidavit of Albert Llussà Solicitor, on behalf of the Applicant, is sworn on 20th March 2024. The Applicant was granted leave to apply for judicial review on 13th May 2024 by order of the High Court (Hyland J.).

7. The Minister’s Statement of Opposition is dated 25th November 2024 and is grounded on the Affidavit of Mary Kelly, Higher Executive Officer in the Domestic Residence and Permission Division of the Department of Justice, which was sworn on 9th December 2024.

8. The Applicant takes particular issue, for example, with paragraphs 8 and 12 of the Statement of Opposition.

9. The Statement of Opposition at paragraph 8 inter alia states that the Minister “was entitled to apply the terms of the Scheme with respect to the proof of residency requirement”, and in this regard, that the Minister “was not obliged to consider the Applicant’s alleged residency in the State between 2010 and 2018” and that it is “an untenable proposition, as a matter of law and/or fact, that purported proof of residency in the State between 2010 and 2018 could prove, without more, residency in the State from 2018 to 2022”.

10. The Statement of Opposition at paragraph 12 inter alia denies that the Minister “made a fundamental error of fact and/or failed to take into account relevant considerations in relation to the finding that the Applicant had not submitted Western Union or alternative financial transfers from the State to her children.” It states that the Minister “fully considered the representations made by the Applicant’s solicitor in relation to the claim that the Applicant’s friend made the transfers on the Applicant’s behalf” and “was entitled to find however that while affidavits can support an application, they are not acceptable proofs in [and] of themselves. There was no evidence submitted to show that the Applicant had made any financial transfers to her children from the State, as the Respondent was entitled to find”.

11. The Applicant also refers to the confirmation by Ms. Kelly, at paragraphs 7 and 8 of her Affidavit, sworn on 9th December 2024, that 14 documents (set out later in this judgment) and referred to as examples of acceptable proofs for residency in the Department’s policy paper were also described as not being “exhaustive”: “(8) While the above was not an exhaustive list, the Minister was entitled to expect sufficient and satisfactory evidential proof as to identity and residence in the State for the relevant period. The Policy Paper also stated that: “Note[1]: Letters from friends/neighbours will not be accepted as the only proof of residency in the State. These documents along with other unverifiable material may be submitted as supporting documentation only””.

12. The Respondent indicated that no time issue was being maintained in its opposition to the Applicant’s application for relief by way of judicial review application.

THE SCHEME

Residency Requirements of the Scheme

13. As mentioned, no issue is made in these proceedings as to the entitlement of the Minister to introduce such a time-limited scheme or to the objectives or scope of the scheme.

14. The scheme was an administrative one established under the Minister’s executive powers which sought to regularise the status of long-term undocumented migrants residing in the State for a 6-month period from 31st January 2022 to 31st July 2022.

15. The objectives and scope of the scheme were described in paragraph 3.1 of the policy paper entitled ‘Policy Paper on the Scheme to Regularise Long-term Undocumented Migrants in Ireland’ (exhibited in the Affidavit of Mary Kelly) as having been “developed to provide residence permission to persons who are living in Ireland, and have been doing so for a long period of time without a valid residence permission in the State, irrespective of how they entered the State initially, and are therefore The emphasis was in the original extract. considered to be “long-term undocumented”. The Scheme is aimed at alleviating the particular challenges faced by those who have been “undocumented” for a long period and who face challenges in integrating into society and maintaining labour market mobility.”

16. No issue arises in these proceedings as to the identity of the Applicant. The challenge, rather, focuses on the issue of proof of residency which was described at paragraph (1.3) of the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) document produced by the Immigration Service Delivery (ISD) in the following terms “Please be aware that you must be able to provide evidence that you have been living undocumented in the State for a continuous basis for the previous four years, prior to the commencement date of the scheme 31 January 2022, and continue to reside in the State undocumented from this date up to, and including, the date on which you submit your application”.

17. Thus, the requirement for an applicant is to show that they have been living undocumented in the State on a continuous basis for each of the 4 years commencing from 31st January 2018 to 31st January 2022, i.e., 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 and up to, and including, the date on which the application was submitted, in the Applicant’s case, this was 6th July 2022, being the date being when her application was made under cover of letter from her solicitors dated 30th June 2022.

18. In summary, the Applicant’s challenge centres around how the Minister assessed this requirement for a minimum period of undocumented residency, the eligibility requirements of which were set out at section/paragraph 4 of the policy paper on the scheme referred to earlier.

19. Therefore, insofar as the Applicant’s challenge to the ministerial decision dated 1st December 2023 is concerned, section/paragraph 4.10 of the scheme provides for a minimum period of undocumented residency as follows:

“(4.10) The requirement for a minimum period of undocumented residency will apply as follows:- (i)The principal applicant must have resided in the State without a valid residence permission continuously for a minimum of four years immediately prior to the opening date for this Scheme i.e. 31st January 2022 and to have continued to do so at date of application…

(iv) The principal applicant and any spouse, civil partner, de facto partner and eligible children must provide documentary evidence of continued presence in the State as set out in section 6 below…

(5) Closing date for applications

The Scheme will operate on an administrative basis under the executive power of the Minister for Justice. It will be open for applications for 6 months only from 31st January 2022 to 31st July 2022…

(6) REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION TO APPLY FOR THIS SCHEME…

Proof of identity…

Proof of residence…

Below is a list of residency documents, which will be accepted. An applicant is required to submit documentation for each of the previous three or four years (or two years in the case of eligible adult family members who are not the principal applicant) that each applicant was living undocumented in the State. All eligible minor children must provide evidence of their residence in the State immediately prior to publication of this Scheme i.e. 13th January 2022 and at the date of application.

➢ Previous Irish Residence Permit (IRP) card or GNIB Card

➢ Previous permission letter issued by the Immigration Service (formerly Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service (INIS) ➢ Social Protection Statements, e.g. evidence of receiving the PUP payment, children’s allowance, etc. ➢ Utility bills (i.e. from electricity/phone/gas/cable television/broadband provider/mobile phone bills)

➢ Registration with the Residential Tenancies Board

➢ Employment Details Summary/P60/P45/P21s or equivalent

➢ Marriage/civil partnership certificates relating to a marriage or civil partnership entered into in Ireland ➢ Evidence that the applicants sat the Junior Certificate and/or a Leaving Certificate exams in Ireland ➢ Evidence that the applicant attended University or a Third level college in Ireland ➢ A letter from a school principal in Ireland, confirming child’s attendance at a school if it was in the past three years ➢ Letter from doctor/hospital in Ireland ➢ Vaccination passport for children, or COVID-19 vaccination card issued in Ireland ➢ Statements or other correspondence from bank/building society/credit union including e-Statements with activity in the country (Statements from store cards/catalogue companies are not acceptable) ➢ Proof of money transfers between the applicant and a third party, carried out at a money transfer facility in the State e.g. Western Union[2] ➢ Correspondence from an insurance company regarded an active policy (home or car insurance policy only). A document that covers more than one person from the family for the required time period will be accepted, e.g. a letter from a school principal which lists all children who attend or a joint bank statement in both applicants names.

If an applicant has one document that covers more than one year of undocumented residence in the State e.g. a letter from the school principal, this would be accepted.

Other official correspondence from an Irish state agency e.g.

Government departments;

Emphasis added in this judgment. HSE; Register of Electors/polling card; CAO; An Garda Síochána; Public/Private hospitals; Residential Tenancies Board; Secondary school/training agency; NCT Reports or reminders; An Post; TV licence; National Government Health Screening Programme(s);

The above is not an exhaustive list and consideration may be given by the immigration service to accepting other forms of verifiable evidence, where appropriate.

Note: Letters from friends/neighbours will not be accepted as the only proof of residency in the State. These documents along with other unverifiable material may be submitted as supporting documentation only.

As part of the application process, Immigration Service Delivery (ISD) must be able to confirm the identification of all the applicants, who submit an application”.

APPLICATION UNDER THE SCHEME & CHRONOLOGY

20. On 30th June 2022, the Applicant, through her solicitors, submitted an application under the Scheme.

21. The application also had a number of documents enclosed, including inter alia copies of her Zimbabwean passport, birth certificate, national ID card and a number of character references, photographs and other documents which referred to her residence in the State. The application also enclosed copy documents which were stated to be money transfers to the Applicant’s relatives, for example, to the Applicant’s son-in-law (TZ), and to some of the Applicant’s children, and which were described as having been effected on her behalf by the Applicant’s friend, (SM). These included copies of Western Union receipt/payment confirmations between SM and TZ, Western Union and World Remit receipts/payment confirmations between TZ and the Applicant’s son CM and Western Union receipt/confirmation of payment between the Applicant herself and her son-in-law, TZ.

22. In the submissions made on behalf of the Applicant, reliance is also placed on what is described as corroborating documentation. It was submitted on behalf of the Applicant, for example, that these were in effect payments from the Applicant in the State to her children, albeit indirectly, and this was further corroborated by the provision of a personal letter signed by SM (accompanied by a copy the biodata page of her Irish passport) confirming this to be so, by a birth certificate showing CM to be the Applicant’s son, by a marriage certificate showing TZ to have married the Applicant’s daughter ZM, and by a birth certificate showing ZM to be the Applicant’s daughter and a MoneyGram receipt/confirmation of payment made by the Applicant herself to Zimbabwe on 23rd March 2022.

23. The letter of application dated 30th June 2022 enclosed approximately 25 copies of documents which included the following:

“(1) Letter of Authority; (2) Colour copy Zimbabwean Passport; (3) Colour copy Birth Certificate; (4) Colour copy Zimbabwean National Registration Card; (5) Proof of Address (POA) for 2013: Passport Application Receipt; (6) POA for 2014: Invoice from the Phone Store dated 10/05/2014 (NB: there is a spelling mistake in [the Applicant’s] surname, which is spelt “[misspelt surname]”); (7) Character Reference Letter dated 23 June 2022 from [the Applicant’s] friend [SM], with a colour copy of her Irish Passport, an electric Ireland utility by way of her proof of address, and two photographs with [the Applicant] dated 2018 and 2019 in Sligo Town; (8) Character Reference Letters dated 26 June 2022 from Pastor XXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX Church for over ten years and stating that [the Applicant] attended the Church from 2015 to 2019 while visiting her friend [SM]; (9)

Character Reference Letter dated 25 June 2022 from XXXXXXX XXXXX

confirming that she has known [the Applicant] since 2012 confirming that she has been supporting and accommodating [the applicant] in her home since then; (10) Character Reference Letter from XXXXXX XXXXX, XXXXX XX XXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XX XXXXX on 25 May 2019;

(11) Character Reference Letter dated 13 June 2022 from XXXX XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXX XXX XXXXXXX XXXXX XX XXX XXXXX in Dublin from December 2021 to 2016, confirming that he has known [the Applicant] since 2012, and that she would go to church with the XXXXXXX family, and that she used to rely on accommodation and food from members of the community, and enclosing two photographs of [the Applicant] with XXX XXXXXXX and their children in XXXXXXXXX, Co. Meath, in 2016; (12) Character Reference Letter dated 22 June 2022 from XXXXXX XXXXXXX, confirming that she has known [the Applicant] since 2012, that they used to attend the XXXXXX XX XXX Church in Dublin together, that [the Applicant] stayed with her family at Newbridge on and off, as and when she needed a place to stay, with two photographs of [the applicant] with Ms. XXXXXXX, one with her children and the other one when she graduated from the XXX XXXXXXX in Ireland, both taken in 2016; (13) Character reference letter from XXXXXXXX XXXXXX, dated

24 June 2022, confirming that she met [the Applicant] in 2013, they used to attend church together, when [the Applicant] was residing with family friends in Newbridge, and enclosing a photograph of [the Applicant] with members of the XXXXXX XX XXX Church in 2019; (14) Photograph of [the applicant] at the Baptism of XXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX’s child; (15) Western Union Receipts of money sent by [the Applicant’s] Friend [SM] to [the Applicant’s] son-in-law [TZ], to support [the Applicant’s] daughter [ZM] and [TZ]; (16) WorldRemit Receipts of money sent by [the applicant’s] Friend [SM] to [the applicant’s] son [CM]; (17) POA for 2017: Western Union Receipt; (18) POA for 2017: Facebook Post dated

19 February 2017 showing [the applicant] with members of the XXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX Church; (19) POA – (2018) Church Donation Receipt; (20) POA – (2021) Stamped Envelope; (21) POA – (2022) Character Reference Letter (XXXXX XXXXX); (22) POA – (2022) Character Reference Letter (XXXXX XXXXXX); (23) POA – (2022) Moneygram Receipt; (24) POA – (2022) Stamped Envelope; and (25) POA

– (2022) Train Tickets.”

24. It is submitted on behalf of the Applicant that all of the documentation submitted was directed at proving that she resided in Ireland during those four years as per the scheme and that the Minister set the bar too high when assessing her application.

25. The application from the Applicant’s solicitor also made the following representations. It was stated that in January 2012, the Applicant had escaped from the family she had worked for. Following this, she stayed with friends and acquaintances. The Applicant had never made any application for permission to remain in the State of any kind and had never left the State since she first came here. The Applicant had never had any interactions with any State or public bodies or organisation – she had never possessed any utility bill in her name, had never been a tenant or paid any rent, never had a PPS number, never had a GP, had not gone to a hospital and did not have a bank account. The letter added that the Applicant’s friend SM collated a number of character references as “some proof of residence in Ireland.” The letter stated that the Applicant was unable to submit any other proof of residence other than what had been enclosed and she was now living on her own in the State without any family members.

26. Whilst the correspondence between the parties is examined in further detail later in this judgment, in summary the parties exchanged communications as follows.

27. On 2nd March 2023, the Respondent requested a full copy of the Applicant’s passport and proof of residence for the years 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021.

28. The Applicant’s solicitor replied on 10th March 2023 (the reference to 2022 is a typographical error) and stated that a full copy of the Applicant’s passport had in fact been provided with the initial application and that the Applicant had no utility bills in her name, no interactions with any state or public bodies or organisations, had not been a tenant or paid rent, and did not have a GP or PPS number. The Respondent acknowledged receipt of that correspondence on 10th March 2023.

29. On 14th March 2023 the Applicant’s solicitor wrote enclosing documents which had been omitted from the initial application.

30. On 15th March 2023, the Respondent issued a further request for proof of residency for the period from 2018 to 2021.

Decision of 27th March 2023

31. By letter dated 27th March 2023, the Respondent refused the Applicant’s application under the scheme as follows: “You have not provided satisfactory documentary evidence to prove that you have been living in the State continuously for the required period under the Scheme eligibility requirements, as required under Section 6 of the Policy Paper … An opportunity was afforded to you on the 02/02/2023 and again on the 15/03/2023 to provide additional residency documents, however, your documents are still insufficient. You have failed to establish your eligibility under the terms of the scheme.”

32. An appeal was submitted on 9th May 2023, where it was restated that the Applicant had submitted all of the documentation that she had in her possession.

33. On 15th June 2023, the Applicant submitted an Affidavit dated 17th May 2023 sworn by Ms. XXXXXXX, a tailor, who stated that she had known the Applicant in Ireland since 2017 and in her view the Applicant had never left Ireland since she arrived in the State. This was the sole extra document which was submitted as part of the appeal.

Decision of 1st December 2023

34. Under cover of correspondence dated 1st December 2023, the Minister for Justice upheld the decision to refuse the Applicant’s application under the scheme, stating inter alia as follows: “You have not provided satisfactory documentary evidence to prove that you have been living in the State continuously for the required period under the Scheme’s eligibility requirements. Clause 6 of the Policy Paper states that applicants are required to submit documentation for each of the previous three or four years … that each applicant was living undocumented in the State.”

35. By letter dated 13th February 2024, the Applicant’s solicitors wrote to the Minister requesting that the decision be withdrawn on the basis that the evidence from 2010 to 2018 should not have been excluded from consideration.

36. A further reminder letter was sent on 28th February 2024.

37. By letter dated 4th March 2024, the Minister replied advising, inter alia, that the documentary requirements were not onerous and that it would be expected that an applicant would be able to provide evidence of their presence in the State over such a prolonged period of time.

38. On 19th December 2023, the Applicant’s solicitor submitted representations to the Minister for Justice for leave to remain on behalf of the Applicant pursuant to section

3 of the Immigration Act 1999. At the time this application was heard before me in June 2025, that matter had not been determined. It was agreed that it was not a matter which touched on the merits of this application for judicial review, but it was acknowledged that arguments could arise as to the possible mootness of the Applicant’s application under the Scheme depending on the nature and timing of any ministerial decision under section 3 of the 1999 Act.

DISCUSSION & DECISION

39. As mentioned earlier, identity is not an issue in this case.

40. In summary, whilst arguments have been made on the Applicant’s behalf about the totality of matters which the Minister can consider having regard, for example, to the reference to the non-exhaustive nature of the residency documents, the Applicant was required to provide evidence that she had been living undocumented in the State on a continuous basis for each of the 4 years commencing from 31st January 2018 to 31st January 2022, i.e., 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 and up to, and including, the date on which the application was submitted, which in the Applicant’s case, was 6th July 2022, being the date being when her application was made under cover of letter from her solicitors dated 30th June 2022.

41. In particular, on the facts of the Applicant’s case, the issue which arises is whether the Applicant had established to the Minister’s satisfaction “proof of money transfers between the applicant and a third party, carried out at a money transfer facility in the State, for example, Western union” which confirmed that she “resided in the State without a valid residence permission continuously for a minimum of four years immediately prior to the opening date for this Scheme i.e. 31st January 2022 and had continued to do so at date of application.”

42. The Applicant maintains she satisfied this requirement when each of the years from 2018 to early 2022, and up to 6th July 2022, are examined.

43. In addition, it is argued on her behalf, for example, that the Minister should also have considered matters in the round and the totality of the evidence, including the period between 2010 to 2018 and the totality of her time spent in the State. The Applicant maintains that she has proven, on the balance of probabilities that she has resided in Ireland, between 31st January 2018 and 6th July 2022 (again, the latter date being when her application was made under cover of letter from her solicitors dated 30th June 2022).

44. By way of example, in a letter dated 23rd June 2022, the Applicant’s friend Ms. B, who inter alia states she has known the Applicant from when she first met her in Newbridge, County Kildare, in May 2013, and that they have supported each other emotionally and socially, stated that “On several occasions I have supported [the applicant] financially for her personal use and by sending money to her children [CM and ZM] in Zimbabwe through Western Union and Worldremit. [TZ] is [ZM’s] husband (see attached money transfer receipts, copies of birth and marriage certificates, AIB Debit card). I am aware that [the Applicant] has been getting support for her accommodation, upkeep and general well-being from friends, churches and well-wishers from the Zimbabwean community in Ireland. Over these years I have known [the Applicant] to be a kind and hardworking person”.

45. It is submitted that these documents have to be viewed in the round and that, for example, the money transfer documentation for the years 2018 to 2021, should be seen in the context of this correspondence and other corroborating documentation, such as the marriage certificates, when assessing the documentary evidence of the Applicant’s residency in the State for the four years immediately prior to the opening of the scheme.

46. For the following reasons, however, I consider that the Minister was entitled to come to the view that the Applicant in this case had not produced sufficient evidence of her continuous residency in the State for each of four years immediately prior to the opening of the scheme.

47. Similar ministerial ex gratia schemes (including this scheme) have been the subject of assessment in a number of decisions of the Superior Courts, including decisions of the High Court in MA v Minister for Justice [2025] IEHC 135 (Heslin J.), E.L. v Minister for Justice [2024] IEHC 647 (O’Regan J.), AKR v Minister for Justice [2022] IEHC

325 (Bolger J.), and the Supreme Court judgments in Bode v Minister for Justice [2008]

3 I.R. 663 and Rana & Ali v Minister for Justice [2024] IESC 46. The parties also referred to a number of other authorities, including the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Whelan J., Haughton J., and Ní Raifeartaigh J.) with the judgment the court being delivered by Ní Raifeartaigh J. in BB v Minister for Justice and Equality [2024] IECA 36.

48. There was, in fact, little disagreement between the parties as to the applicable principles and the central issue in this case was whether the Minister had correctly applied the stated criteria in assessing whether or not the Applicant had produced sufficient evidence of her continuous residency in the State for the four years immediately prior to the opening of the scheme.

49. The scheme which provided the context of the ministerial decision in this case was another example of an administrative, ministerial ex gratia scheme which does not engage the legal rights of the parties but merely confers a gift or benefit on those parties deemed eligible and who have satisfied the required criteria. The Applicant’s rights, including inter alia her invocation of an application pursuant to section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 remained unaffected by the adverse decision of the Minister given on 1st December 2023.

50. This point was made clear in the letter dated 4th March 2024 from Mary Kelly, Unit A, DRP, Department of Justice, to the Applicant’s solicitors in response to their letter which was received on 15th February 2024, when referring to the documentary requirements for proving evidence of residency in the State not being “onerous” and that the Applicant “had not submitted any evidence of having made Western Union or alternative financial transfers from the State to her children” as one of the accepted proofs of residence and added, as follows:

“The scheme is a scheme for administration set up by executive

decision of the Government. It is for the Minister to determine the qualifying criteria for the Scheme and the Minister is entitled to apply those criteria. The Minister’s obligation is to consider the application within the requirements of the Scheme to see whether it meets those criteria. This does not preclude the Minister from exercising her discretion in any particular case and your client is entitled to request the Minister to use her discretion to grant permission to remain in the State, outside the criteria of the Scheme”.

51. The Applicant, in fact, has chosen to make written representations to the Minister under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 (as amended).

52. The terms of the scheme and the eligibility criteria in relation to residency are important and these were emphasised in the correspondence sent on behalf of the Minister, where, for example, specific on-line links were provided, on a number of occasions in each letter, to the scheme and information in relation to the scheme.

53. One such letter was that dated 15th March 2023 (from the General Immigration Division) of the Department to the Applicant’s solicitor, where the first three paragraphs refer to links relating to first identity (which is not an issue in this case) and then residence, and inter alia states:

“After reviewing your client’s online application, we note the evidence you have submitted for your client is insufficient. Please provide this office with evidence for the following: *Proof of residency for the following years: 2018,2019,2020, 20213 At this time, please ask your client to provide anything they feel will support their application for these years”.

(An earlier letter dated 2nd March 2023 from the General Immigration Division referred inter alia to “After reviewing your client’s online application, we note the evidence you have submitted for your client is insufficient. Please provide this office with evidence for the following: *Identity documentation: full copy of passport. *Proof of residency for the following years: 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021”. The identity question later fell away as an issue).

54. On 27th March 2023, the official from the Undocumented Scheme Unit of the Department of Justice wrote to the Applicant and inter alia stated:

“Dear…

I am directed by the Minister for Justice to refer to your application under the … Scheme. Your application has been assessed in line with Emphasis in the original letter. the criteria of the Scheme, as outlined in the Policy Paper [on-line reference set out] … In assessing your application, we have considered all relevant information available to us, including the documentary evidence you provided, as well as your immigration history in the State. Your application has been refused for the following reason: You have not provided satisfactory documentary evidence to prove that you have been living in the State continuously for the required period under the Scheme eligibility requirements, as required under section 6 of the Policy Paper, available at [On-line reference set out] An opportunity was afforded to you on the 02/02/2023 and again on the 15/03/2023 to provide additional residency documents, however, your documents are still insufficient. You have failed to establish your eligibility under terms of the scheme”.

55. In the reply to this letter from the Applicant’s solicitors dated 9th May 2023, they reiterate that the Applicant had, in her initial application, submitted all the documentation and corroborating documentation (together with her passport) in her possession, and added:

“As detailed in our letters of 30/06/2022 and 14/03/2023, our Client has been accommodated by friends in Ireland and she has submitted references from the people with whom she has stayed. The same people submitted their proofs of address. These are the addresses which our Client wrote on her Garda vetting form.

Since our Client has relied on friends for her accommodation, she has no utilities bills in her name. She has never had any interactions with any state or public bodies or organisations. She has never had any utility bill in her name. She has never been a tenant nor paid any rent.

She has never had a Public Service Number. She has never had a

Medical card. She has never gone to hospital nor has she ever been registered with a GP. She does not have a bank account nor any utility services in her name. With the help and assistance of her good friend [SM], she has managed to obtain a number of character reference letters and some proof of her residence in Ireland which were submitted with her initial application. She has also managed to get some affidavit evidence in support of [her] [sic.] claim that she has been resident in Ireland. She is unable to submit any other proof of residence other than the documents enclosed herewith. [The Applicant] is living on her own in the State, without any family members. She has three children in Zimbabwe, whom she tries to support, with the little income she gets from her informal jobs, and with the help of her good friend and member of the same church, [SM]. We kindly request that you accept the previously submitted documentation”.

56. An example of what senior counsel for the Applicant referred to as corroborating documentation, can be seen in the Affidavit of XXXXXXX, a tailor from Sligo, who had sworn an affidavit on 17th May 2023 in support of the Applicant’s application under the scheme stating that they had known the Applicant since 2017 and had been introduced by the Applicant’s friend who was also a customer and stated that “to the best of my knowledge and belief, [the Applicant] has continuously resided in Ireland since she was first introduced to me in 2017 and she has never left Ireland”.

57. By letter dated 1st December 2023, an official in the Undocumented Scheme Unit wrote to the Applicant in relation to her appeal and inter alia held as follows:

“Having considered the entirety of the case, the refusal decision of 26 April 2023 is upheld for the following reason(s): You have not provided satisfactory documentary evidence to prove that you have been living in the State continuously for the required period under the Scheme’s eligibility requirements. Clause 6 of the Policy paper states that applicants are required to submit documentation for each of the previous three or four years (or two years in the case of eligible adult family members who are not the principal applicant) that each applicant was living undocumented in the State. The documentary evidence is insufficient to prove that you have been living in the State continuously for the required period under the Scheme eligibility requirements. In arriving at this decision, I found that the appropriate procedures were applied and the initial decision maker applied the correct interpretation of the eligibility criterial detailed in the Policy Paper and in other associated information on the Scheme, as available on the Immigration Service Delivery website … Your application for permission under the … Scheme is refused”.

58. The letter dated 1st December 2023 outlined the three options which were available to the Applicant in relation to section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 and the notification to the Applicant that the Minister proposed to make a Deportation Order. As it happens, the Applicant chose the third option which referred to the submission of written representations to the Minister under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 (as amended). This is not a matter which arises for consideration in this judicial review application.

59. Both in her application under the scheme to the Minister, and in submissions in this judicial review application, considerable emphasis was placed by, and on behalf of, the Applicant, on the issue of proof of money transfers between the Applicant and a third party, carried out at a money transfer facility in the State, e.g., Western Union.

60. In relation to 2016, a copy of a Western Union payment dated 5th May 2016 for the amount of €138.00 from SM with to CM in Harare (who is stated to be the Applicant’s son) was, in fact, outside the period of the scheme.

61. The copy of the document dated ‘4/3/2017’ (which I understand to be 3rd April 2017) and is a copy of a Western Union money transfer from the Applicant (the address in Ireland in the copy of the document exhibited is covered by the Western Union (‘WU’) stamp) to TZ (stated to be the Applicant’s son-in-law) is also outside the period of the scheme.

62. Whilst this can be read together with the letter dated 23rd June 2022 from the Applicant’s friend SM, an extract of which is quoted earlier in this judgment, the ‘supporting nature’ of such documentation is confirmed in the ‘Note’ to paragraph (6) of the Scheme which refers to ‘Required Documentation to Apply for this Scheme’ under the sub-heading ‘Proof of Residence’ after inter alia listing the 15 examples of residency documents states:

“The above is not an exhaustive list and consideration may be given by the Immigration Service to accepting other forms of verifiable evidence, where appropriate. Note: Letters from friends/neighbours will not be accepted as the only proof of residency in the State. These documents along with other unverifiable material may be submitted as supporting documentation only.”

63. These are, therefore, matters which may, if the Minister so decided, be considered, albeit in a supporting context, but could not in, any sense, be described as being dispositive of the ministerial discretion in this case and were, in any event, outside of the period of the published scheme.

64. Further in this regard, paragraph (12) of the Statement of Opposition filed on behalf of the Minister (and referred to earlier in this judgment) states that the Minister “fully considered the representations made by the Applicant’s solicitor in relation to the claim that the Applicant’s friend made the transfers on the Applicant’s behalf” and “was entitled to find however that while affidavits can support an application, they are not acceptable proofs in [and] of themselves. There was no evidence submitted to show that the Applicant had made any financial transfers to her children from the State, as the Respondent was entitled to find”.

65. In relation to each of the years 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021, copy documentation was furnished to the Minister of payments made by a third party to a recipient, who was stated to be the Applicant’s son-in-law or the Applicant’s son.

66. In 2018, for example, reference was made to a copy of Western Union customer receipt dated 27th July 2018 in relation to a total payment of €242.63 from SM with an address in Sligo to TZ (stated to be the Applicant’s son-in-law) in Harare and another example involving the same parties was in relation to a copy of WorldRemit payment receipt dated 26th October 2018 for a total amount of €149.99. A copy of a WorldRemit payment receipt dated 30th November 2018 for a total amount of €96.07 from SM with, an address in Sligo, to CM in Harare (who is stated to be the Applicant’s son) and a further copy payment involving the same parties for the payment of €96.38 was made on 17th December 2018.

67. In relation to 2019, for example, reference was made to a copy of WorldRemit payment receipt dated 3rd February 2019 in relation to a total payment of €114.65 from SM with an address in Sligo to TZ (stated to be the Applicant’s son-in-law) in Harare.

68. In relation to 2020, for example, reference was made to a copy of WorldRemit payment receipt dated 24th August 2020 in relation to a total payment of €155.51 from SM with an address in Sligo to TZ (stated to be the Applicant’s son-in-law) in Harare.

69. In relation to 2021, for example, reference was made to a copy of WorldRemit payment receipt dated 17th March 2021 in relation to a total payment of €55.68 from SM with an address in Sligo to TZ (stated to be the Applicant’s son-in-law) in Harare.

70. The Applicant also referred to a copy of a receipt from MoneyGram dated 23rd March 2022 in the amount of $50(US) from the Applicant with an address in Newbridge, County Kildare, to XXXXXXXX in Zimbabwe. Whilst this was before 6th July 2022, it does not address the requirement for the Applicant to show that she has been living undocumented in the State on a continuous basis for each of the 4 years commencing from 31st January 2018 to 31st January 2022 i.e., 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021.

71. It is submitted on behalf of the Applicant that the Minister’s approach was too narrow and too strict, i.e., as if the list was exhaustive, when assessing the documents submitted by, and on behalf of, the Applicant having regard to the standard to be applied, namely the balance of probabilities and the reference to the suite of residency documents referred to in section 6 of the policy document not being an exhaustive list and that consideration may be given by the Immigration Service to accepting other forms of verifiable evidence, where appropriate. Taken together, it was submitted that a third party sending money transfers on behalf of the Applicant, taken together with the suite of other corroborating documentation, should have been sufficient to satisfy the Minister that the Applicant complied with the scheme.

72. The correspondence between the parties, referred to above, went to some lengths to assist the Applicant in notifying her of the requirements of the scheme which in terms of the Applicant establishing that she resided in the State without a valid residence permission continuously for a minimum of four years immediately prior to the opening date for the Scheme was not particularly onerous. The process, and correspondence engaged in, was fair.

73. The (then) Minister was entitled to come to the conclusion which she did.

74. In the document, for example, under the sub-heading ‘Summation” Ms. Farrelly of the Undocumented Scheme Unit points out that the Applicant’s “residence in the State between 2010 and 31 January 2018 was not taken into account in the original decision, and is not being taken into account in this appeal decision. Time spent in the State, whether as a documented or undocumented person, prior to 31st January 2018, is irrelevant for the purposes of this particular Scheme. The Appellant has failed to produce satisfactory evidence that she was resident, either documented or undocumented during the qualifying period of the scheme i.e. 31st January 2018 up to the date of applying for the scheme on the 6th July 2022 and continuing to do so. Her solicitor has stated that she has three children in Zimbabwe, whom she tries to support, with the little income she gets from her informal jobs, and with the help of friends. However, she has submitted no evidence of having made Western Union or alternative financial transfers from the State to her children, one of the accepted proofs of residence. Affidavits can support an application but are not acceptable proofs of residence in [and] of themselves. I therefore find that she has not provided satisfactory evidence that she has resided in the State for the required period. I am further satisfied that the deciding officer fully considered the facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s original application and applied the criteria of the Scheme correctly and fairly. I affirm the original decision of 26th April 2023 and refuse the appeal”.

75. Further, it was the Applicant who chose to meet this requirement by seeking to rely on the criteria which required “proof of money transfers between the applicant and a third party, carried out at a money transfer facility in the State e.g. Western union.” In this regard, it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the matter which was sought to be addressed related to the Applicant establishing that she resided in the State without a valid residence permission continuously each of the four years 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021.

76. Even accepting the copy of the receipt from MoneyGram dated 23rd March 2022 in the amount of $50(US) from the Applicant with an address in Newbridge, County Kildare, to XXXXXXXX in Zimbabwe, the Minister remained entitled to find that the Applicant had not provided satisfactory documentary evidence to prove she had been living in the State continuously for the 4 years of 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021.

CONCLUSION

77. In this case, the Applicant’s name and address were not on the copy transfers furnished and relied upon by the Applicant for each of the years, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 notwithstanding that it was the Applicant who chose the category of criteria which required “proof of money transfers between the applicant and a third party, carried out at money transfer facility in the State e.g. Western union” as the method to prove her continuous residency in the State for each of the four years immediately prior to the opening of the scheme in 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021. None of the examples of what were described, on behalf of the Applicant as corroborative letters, or the documents submitted between 2010 to 2018, were of assistance to the Applicant in meeting the failure to meet the stated criteria.

78. In the circumstances, and for the reasons outlined in this judgment, I shall refuse the Applicant’s the reliefs sought.

PROPOSED ORDER

79. I propose to make an order refusing the Applicant’s application for the reliefs claimed by way of judicial review. My provisional view is that, as the Respondent has been entirely successful, he is entitled to the costs of this challenge.

80. However, in the event that any of the parties wish to make submissions that a different costs order should be made having regard to the provisions of sections 168 and 169 of the Legal Services Act 2015 and (the recast) Order 99 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986 (as amended), submissions of 1,000 words can be exchanged and filed in Court and this matter, and any other consequential or ancillary matters which arise, can be addressed at the for mention date.

81. I shall therefore put the matter in for mention before me at 10:30 on Tuesday 28th October 2025.

APPEARANCES

82. Anthony Hanrahan SC and Siobhán Clabby BL appeared for the Applicant instructed by Daly Lynch Crowe & Morris Solicitors LLP

83. Sarah Cooney BL appeared for the Respondent instructed by the Chief State Solicitor’s Office CONLETH BRADLEY Tuesday 21st October 2025