The High Court has quashed the refusal of an employment visa for Afghan national Abdul Qadoos Masood and ordered the application returned to a different Department of Justice official for reconsideration.
In a judgment delivered on 10 September 2025, Ms Justice Sara Phelan found that the appeal decision did not lawfully assess evidence of Mr Masood’s work in Pakistan, gave inadequate reasons for doubting his proposed employment in Ireland and did not explain why the visa officer believed he might breach visa conditions.
Mr Masood, who had lived in Pakistan as a refugee for about 20 years, applied for an employment visa after receiving a permit to work as a chef de partie for an Irish restaurant company. The visa was refused on appeal in December 2023. The refusal said a letter from his Pakistani employer could not be verified, questioned his qualifications to work as a “head chef”, and cited insufficient financial and employment documents.
The judge said the employer’s letter included contact details and invited enquiries, but there was no evidence the decision-maker had tried to verify its contents. The judgment also noted that the Irish job was for a chef de partie, not a head chef. The court found no rational basis in the material before it for treating a Gmail address as unacceptable, and said the decision-maker had applied documentation requirements rigidly despite being told that some records, including payslips, a Pakistani employment contract and tax records, were unavailable to Mr Masood.
The appeal refusal also called the proposed Irish employment not credible without explaining why, despite documents including a job offer, employment contract, permit and information from the prospective employer. The judge found the concern was separate from the other refusal reasons and had not been put to Mr Masood so he could respond. She said the decision gave no clear reasons for concluding he would not observe visa conditions. An earlier concern about obligations to return did not appear in the appeal refusal.
The respondent also argued that Mr Masood’s judicial review papers lacked candour, citing inconsistencies in his applications and documents concerning his residence history, marital status and date of birth. Mr Masood gave explanations in an affidavit, including that some entries were mistakes. The judge acknowledged material errors but declined to refuse relief on that basis, finding they did not warrant withholding relief in the circumstances. She said the inconsistencies could be considered on reconsideration.
The court quashed the 4 December 2023 refusal and remitted the visa application to a different official. Mr Masood had held an employment permit that expired before the judicial review hearing, and the judgment records that a later permit application was refused, in part because he had not taken up the first permit. The judge proposed hearing the parties on the precise costs order on 16 October 2025; costs were not finally determined in the judgment.