The High Court has refused an Indian national’s challenge to the refusal of a visa to take up an offered job with Dublin company MR Cuisine. Mr Justice Barry O’Donnell ruled on 9 July 2025 that the central reason for refusing the visa was adequately explained and reasonable. The court did not quash the refusal decision.
The applicant had been offered a job described as an “IT & Software Management Executive” and his prospective employer obtained a General Employment Permit in May 2022. The visa application was refused in October 2022, and an appeal was rejected in February 2023.
The appeal decision said the applicant had not provided enough evidence of relevant IT experience and qualifications. It also questioned a letter submitted on appeal that purported to show he had worked as an IT software management manager for Delvegsco Sales Private Limited. The decision said the contact details on the letter conflicted with public contact information for the company, and that attempts to obtain further confirmation received no substantive response. It also noted that the applicant had reported working for Marriott International India during the same period.
The applicant argued that the decision was unfair and unreasonable, including because he had not been given a chance to respond to concerns about the Delvegsco material. He also said the decision-maker had not properly considered his employment permit. The court found that the first refusal had expressly raised concerns about whether he had the experience needed for the job, giving him an opportunity to address them on appeal. It also found that the permit had to be considered, but did not establish that he was qualified for the position.
The judge found that the reference to a “course” in one refusal reason was an error, but not a material one: the decision-makers understood that the application was for work. The court also accepted the respondents’ admission that the “OC” ground—concerning whether visa conditions would be observed—was flawed because no explanation was given for it.
However, the judge concluded that this flaw did not require the whole decision to be quashed. He considered the remaining reasons, particularly the lack of evidence supporting the applicant’s claimed IT qualifications and experience, sufficient to sustain the refusal. The court therefore refused the relief sought.
The judge expressed a provisional view that the respondents should receive their costs. The matter was listed for further submissions on the order and costs on 15 July 2025; the judgment does not record the final outcome of that hearing.