Judgment: 2025-12-09 · Court archive

High Court quashes refusal of Pakistani meat factory worker’s Irish visa appeal

High Court · [2025] IEHC 708

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Z.I.
  • Mr Justice Sean Gillane
  • prospective employer
What

High Court quashes refusal of Pakistani meat factory worker’s Irish visa appeal

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • County Mayo
  • Pakistan
  • High Court
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Mr Justice Sean Gillane held on 9 December 2025 that parts of that decision were unlawful. On work experience, the court found that the reasoning had effectively shifted after Z.I. addressed the original concern about whether he had worked in the meat shop. The appeal decision instead criticised the absence of more detailed evidence about his role and qualifications without giving him a fair opportunity to address that changed concern.

The High Court has quashed the refusal of an Irish employment visa to a Pakistani man who had secured a work permit and an offer of full-time employment at a meat factory in County Mayo.

Z.I. applied for the visa in November 2022 after obtaining a general employment permit. His prospective employer offered him work as a general operative for €441 a week and said it would arrange and pay for his accommodation.

The visa was refused at first instance in January 2023. Officials raised concerns about proof of his previous meat-shop employment in Pakistan, his accommodation arrangements and whether he would comply with the visa conditions and return home.

Z.I. appealed and supplied further material. This included a new letter from his former employer with contact details, confirmation from the Irish employer that accommodation had been arranged and paid for, and information about his wife and three children in Pakistan.

The appeal was refused in March 2024.

Mr Justice Sean Gillane held on 9 December 2025 that parts of that decision were unlawful. On work experience, the court found that the reasoning had effectively shifted after Z.I. addressed the original concern about whether he had worked in the meat shop. The appeal decision instead criticised the absence of more detailed evidence about his role and qualifications without giving him a fair opportunity to address that changed concern.

The judge also found the accommodation reasoning irrational. The employer’s letter was evidence that accommodation had been arranged and paid for, yet the appeal decision said no supporting evidence had been provided and required proof of a contract not identified in the published guidance.

The court further held that the reasoning on the risk of overstaying was too generic to explain why Z.I.’s family ties, employment and other submissions had been rejected.

The appeal decision was quashed. The case was not sent back for reconsideration because the underlying work permit had expired.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review