The High Court of Ireland delivered a landmark judgment in the cases of Israr Ahmed v Minister for Justice and Nazneen Arshad v Minister for Justice on July 4, 2024. Both cases addressed the refusal of applications for certificates of naturalisation under Section 15 of the Irish Naturalisation and Citizenship Act, 1956, as amended. The core legal issue revolved around whether the period of physical presence in Ireland as permitted family members of EU citizens, whose residency applications were under consideration under the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) Regulations 2015, should be considered reckonable residence for naturalisation purposes. The applicants, Ahmed and Arshad, sought to have their residence periods during pending residency applications counted towards the statutory residence requirements for naturalisation.

Justice Siobhán Phelan, delivering the judgment, found that the Minister for Justice erred in law by excluding the residence periods under Regulation 7(6) of the 2015 Regulations from being reckonable for naturalisation. The High Court held that the acceptance of applications for residence as permitted family members implicitly conferred the right to remain in Ireland pending the determination of those applications. Consequently, the periods during which Ahmed and Arshad resided in Ireland while their residency applications were under consideration should be counted towards the five-year residence requirement for naturalisation. The court quashed the Minister's refusals, ordering that the naturalisation applications be reconsidered with the reckonable residence correctly calculated.

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively engaged with prior case law to contextualize and support its reasoning:

• Druzinins v. Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform [2010] IEHC 84: Established that acknowledgment of a residence application legitimizes the applicant's presence in Ireland pending a decision.
• Desci v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2010] IEHC 342: Confirmed that qualifying family members are entitled to work and reside in Ireland upon receipt of acknowledgment, relying on EU law provisions.
• Sulaimon v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2012] IESC 63: Determined that lawful residence can exist without formal permissions, especially in contexts involving EU rights.
• Rodis v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2016] IEHC 360: Highlighted that certain individuals, such as diplomats, are not subject to immigration law in the same manner, affecting reckonable residence calculations.
• C.A. v. Governor of Cloverhill Prison [2017] IECA 46 and Rafique v. Governor of the Dóchas Centre [2017] IEHC 80: Addressed the status of permitted family members and the implications of pending residency applications.
• Kant v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2019] IEHC 583: Explored the distinction between permissions under different regulatory frameworks, reinforcing that EU-law-based permissions do not need to align with Domestic Act permissions.
• S.S. (Pakistan) v. Governor of Mountjoy Prison [2019] IESC 37: Established that EU-founded residency rights can coexist with domestic permissions without conflicting.

Legal Reasoning

The court delved into a nuanced interpretation of multiple statutory instruments and their interplay:

• European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) Regulations 2015: Defines "qualifying" and "permitted" family members, outlining the procedures for residency applications and the rights conferred during pending applications.
• Irish Naturalisation and Citizenship Act, 1956 (as amended): Specifies the requirements for naturalisation, including the necessity of reckonable residence and the exclusion of certain periods from this calculation.
• Immigration Act, 2004 (as amended): Governs immigration permissions, specifically Section 5(1), which restricts presence in Ireland without appropriate permission.

The crux of the legal reasoning rested on whether Regulation 7(6) of the 2015 Regulations, which permits an applicant to remain in Ireland pending a residency decision, constitutes a form of "permission" under Section 5(1) of the Immigration Act, 2004. The Court concluded that it does indeed serve as a statutory permission, thereby rendering the applicants' presence lawful and reckonable under Section 16A of the Naturalisation Act.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future naturalisation applications involving family members of EU citizens. It clarifies that periods of residence under pending permitted family member applications should be counted towards the required residence for naturalisation. This alignment ensures that applicants are not penalized for exercising their rights under EU law and promotes consistency between immigration and naturalisation processes. Furthermore, it underscores the necessity for the Minister to adhere strictly to statutory requirements when calculating reckonable residence, preventing arbitrary exclusions that undermine applicants' eligibility.

Reckonable Residence

Reckonable residence refers to the period a person has lawfully resided in Ireland, which counts towards eligibility for naturalisation. Certain periods may be excluded based on specific legal provisions.

Qualifying vs. Permitted Family Members

Qualifying family members (e.g., spouses, dependent children) have an automatic right to reside in Ireland based on their EU family member's status. Permitted family members (e.g., siblings, adult children) require a favorable decision under Regulation 5 to be treated as such and have a more discretionary right to reside.

Regulation 7(6) of the 2015 Regulations

This regulation allows family members applying for residency to remain in Ireland while their application is being processed. The High Court interpreted this as conferring a form of statutory permission, ensuring their presence is lawful during this period.

Section 16A of the Naturalisation Act

This section outlines what periods of residence are excluded from being counted towards naturalisation eligibility. Residence periods in violation of specific regulations are not reckonable.

Section 5(1) of the Immigration Act, 2004

This provision prohibits non-nationals from being present in Ireland without proper permission. The Court's interpretation ensured that permission under EU-regulated processes does not conflict with this section.

The High Court's decision in Ahmed v Minister for Justice and Arshad v Minister for Justice establishes a pivotal precedent in the interplay between EU family rights and Irish naturalisation law. By recognizing Regulation 7(6) of the 2015 Regulations as a form of statutory permission, the Court ensures that applicants' residence periods during pending residency applications are duly counted towards naturalisation requirements. This judgment not only reinforces the protection of EU family members' rights within Ireland but also mandates a more consistent and fair approach to calculating reckonable residence for citizenship purposes. Future applicants and legal practitioners must take note of this interpretation to navigate naturalisation processes effectively and ensure compliance with both EU and domestic legal frameworks.