The High Court has refused an application for judicial review challenging the refusal of a visa to Egyptian national Ahmed Elmebayad, who sought to enter Ireland for a proposed job as a Middle Eastern halal chef.
Mr Justice David Keane delivered the judgment on 7 June 2019. The case concerned a decision made on appeal by the Minister for Justice and Equality on 9 June 2017.
Mr Elmebayad had been granted an employment permit in September 2015 to work for Sparks Café & Bistro Limited. His initial visa application was refused in January 2017. The refusal cited concerns including photocopied education and work records, missing employment documents, uncertainty about when he had left Ireland after a 2006 visit, and whether he would comply with visa conditions. It also questioned the proposed halal-chef role because the restaurant did not serve halal food.
His appeal was unsuccessful. The appeal decision cited the absence of an employment contract and an up-to-date employer letter, no documents clarifying when he left Ireland in 2006, and insufficient evidence that he would observe visa conditions.
In the judicial review, Mr Elmebayad argued that the Minister had relied on irrelevant considerations, had not warned him that an updated contract was required, acted irrationally, and failed to give adequate reasons. He also challenged the requirement for evidence of his departure from Ireland, saying the evidence available to him in 2017 was circumstantial evidence of his asserted presence in Egypt from March 2007.
The judge said the Minister’s immigration powers were subject to court review, but that the applicable test was whether the decision was arbitrary, capricious or unjust. He rejected the complaint about fair procedures, noting that it was for the applicant to provide relevant facts and evidence in support of his application.
The court found the reasons for the refusal adequate and said they gave Mr Elmebayad enough information to assess the decision’s lawfulness. It found no basis for concluding that the decision was irrational or plainly contrary to reason and common sense. The judge also held that assessing the extent of evidence required was within the Minister’s discretion, and that the employment permit did not constrain the separate power to decide entry visas.
The judicial review application was refused. The court did not grant the visa or set aside the Minister’s decision.