A Dublin-based Brazilian-born businessman has lost a legal challenge in which he sought to overturn a 2019 decision by the Minister for Justice to deny him permission to stay in Ireland after he appeared that he had entered into a bogus marriage to secure his residency rights.
r Tiago Da Silva Mascarenhas, owner of Dublin-based English language school SEDA, previously admitted to Gardai in 2017 that he entered into a marriage of convenience to obtain permission to reside in Ireland.
He was subsequently notified by the Minister for Justice of his intention to expel him from Ireland and to refuse him permission to reside in Ireland.
The Irish Independent reported last month that a new venture planned by Mr Mascarenhas, MovePay, had claimed to be authorized by the Central Bank of Ireland when in fact it was not.
The businessman had asked the Court of Appeal to invalidate, or make an order of so-called certiorarithe decision of the Minister of Justice in March 2019 to refuse him permission to reside in Ireland.
“Central to this appeal is whether the Minister has dealt with the appellant’s claim to the right to respect for his private life (as distinct from his family life) under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights rights in an erroneous/unlawful manner”, noted the Court of Justice. Appeal in a decision published last Friday. In 2020, the High Court ruled that Mr Mascarenhas had engaged in “significant fraud” regarding his immigration status, entering into a marriage of convenience in 2011 with an EU national.
At the end of 2021, Mr Mascarenhas informed the Court of Appeal that he had obtained Portuguese nationality. Earlier this year, the deportation proposal against him was withdrawn.
The Minister of Justice then argued before the Court of Appeal that the businessman’s appeal against the decision to refuse leave to reside in Ireland was moot.
Mr Mascarenhas insisted no, as he claimed the Minister’s decision would impact his rights, including his right to acquire Irish citizenship.
“As the Minister has been entirely successful in opposing this appeal, it would appear that the Minister is entitled to his costs of this appeal against the appellant,” the Court of Appeal noted in dismissing Mr. Mascarenhas’ action. . If he wishes to contest an order for costs in favor of the Minister, he has two weeks from the date of the pronouncement of the judgment to do so.