The High Court has rejected a Georgian man’s attempt to compel the Minister for Justice to consider him for a separate residence permission based on a general employment permit obtained by his employer.
The applicant, identified as G.T. because his international protection case remained ongoing, arrived in Ireland in December 2021. He began working as a general operative in the construction sector in April 2022 and later obtained labour market access permission as an international protection applicant.
His employer also obtained a general employment permit for him in July 2024. That permit related to employment only and did not itself confer permission to reside in Ireland.
On 7 August 2024, G.T. attended Immigration Service Delivery offices at Burgh Quay, Dublin, after booking an appointment described as one to register immigration permission for the first time. He presented his employment permit and passport and asked to be registered. Registration was refused because he was an international protection applicant.
G.T. later argued that he had in substance applied for a separate Stamp 1 residence permission and that the Minister had unlawfully failed or refused to consider it. He sought either an order compelling a decision or an order quashing the alleged refusal.
Mr Justice Barry O’Donnell rejected that characterisation. The court drew a clear distinction between obtaining immigration permission and registering a permission which has already been granted. A registration officer verifies existing permissions and documents but does not decide whether a new residence permission should be granted.
The judge found that G.T. had booked and attended an appointment for registration and had not made an application under section 4 of the Immigration Act 2004 for a separate residence permission.
The court therefore refused judicial review. It expressly left open the broader question of whether an international protection applicant could separately obtain residence permission connected to an employment permit. Final orders and costs were left for a later hearing.