The High Court has refused a Pakistani chef’s application to quash a decision upholding the refusal of his Irish employment visa, finding that the visa decision-maker’s concerns were rationally open on the material submitted. The applicant was also ordered to pay the respondent’s costs.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Tara Burns on 16 July 2021, concerned a judicial review of the Minister for Justice’s review decision. The applicant had been granted a General Employment Permit to work as a chef de partie at a restaurant in Bray, County Wicklow, for two years from 30 August 2019. The permit allowed employment in the specified role but was not a residence permit and required appropriate immigration permission.
The applicant’s employment visa application was refused on 27 November 2019. The refusal cited missing or inadequate supporting documents, including financial records, employment documents and qualifications, and said the connection to the prospective employer had not been explained. After an appeal and further documents, the refusal was upheld on 25 May 2020. The review decision said he had not supplied qualification evidence or payslips from his previous employer, had not supported his claim that he was paid in cash, and had not adequately explained his link to the sponsor. The Minister was also not satisfied that his personal, economic and family circumstances showed he would comply with visa conditions.
The applicant argued that those findings were erroneous or irrational and that reasons for the compliance concern had not been given. The court applied a deferential judicial review standard: whether the decision was arbitrary, capricious or unjust, equivalent in this case to whether it flew in the face of fundamental reason and common sense. It stressed that judicial review was not an appeal on the merits.
The judge found that the visa decision-maker could conclude that the applicant’s brief account of his work history and a former employer’s reference did not document qualifications for the proposed job. Three documents said to be payslips were considered, but their content left the decision-maker entitled not to accept them as payslips. The employer’s letter and other material did not compel acceptance of the cash-payment claim. The visa application also did not explain the connection between the applicant and the prospective employer, although that information had appeared in the separate work-permit application.
The court said the work-permit decision and the visa decision served distinct functions. Grant of a work permit did not establish that refusing a visa was irrational. Reading the refusal and review decision together, the judge found the reason for the concern about compliance was apparent: the Minister was not satisfied, on the documentation provided, that the applicant would undertake the permitted work and no other activities.
The grounds of challenge were not made out. The court refused the requested relief and awarded costs to the respondent.