The High Court has refused a Pakistani chef’s judicial review challenge to the refusal of an employment visa, finding that the Minister for Justice’s concerns about the supporting documents did not fly in the face of reason or common sense. The court also ordered the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs.
The applicant had been offered work as a chef de partie at a Pakistani restaurant in Bray, County Wicklow. A General Employment Permit allowed him to take the specified job for two years from 30 August 2019, but the permit was not a residence permit and required appropriate immigration permission.
His employment visa application was refused in November 2019. The refusal cited missing qualification and financial documents, insufficient evidence about his employment and proposed job, and concerns about whether he would comply with the visa conditions. A review appeal was rejected in May 2020. The applicant then obtained leave to seek judicial review in October 2020.
He argued that the decision was unreasonable or irrational because he had not provided documentary proof of his qualifications, evidence supporting his claim that he was paid in cash, an explanation for a gap of more than two years in bank transactions, or a demonstrated connection to his prospective employer. He also challenged the reasons given for the conclusion that he might not observe the visa conditions.
Justice Tara Burns said the court’s role was not to decide the visa application afresh. Applying a deferential standard, she considered whether the decision was arbitrary, capricious or unjust, or contrary to fundamental reason and common sense.
The judge found that the visa officer could reasonably regard the work history and employer references as insufficient proof of qualifications. The work permit did not make that conclusion irrational: the permit and visa processes serve different purposes, and the permit did not establish that the visa applicant had satisfied the separate entry requirements.
The judge also held that it was open to the Minister to seek more evidence for the claim of cash pay and to question the unexplained bank-account gap. The bank records showed cash lodgements at earlier periods, which the court said contradicted the suggestion that cash pay explained the lack of account use. The application to the visa authority also did not explain the applicant’s connection with the prospective employer, a matter the judge considered significant.
The court concluded that the identified gaps could rationally raise concerns about whether the applicant would undertake the permitted job and comply with its conditions. It refused the relief sought and made an order for the respondent’s costs. The judgment does not grant or cancel the employment permit.