Raza v The Minister For Justice (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This judgment was delivered electronically by Judge Barr on 28 February 2025. The Plaintiff, a Pakistani national aged 25, applied for a long-stay D visa to enter The State to take up employment as a chef de partie at a kebab/fast-food outlet in The City. The Plaintiff obtained a two-year general employment permit from The Department under s.3A(2)(c) of the Employment Permits Act 2006. That permit was valid from 24 June 2022 to 23 June 2024.

Key factual steps and procedural history (as stated in the opinion):

• In June 2022 the Plaintiff received an offer of employment as a chef de partie and obtained a general employment permit from The Department. He then applied online for a long-stay D visa on 29 June 2022.
• The Plaintiff submitted a range of supporting documents with the visa application and later on appeal, including (inter alia): an employment-permit letter from The Department, a copy of the permit, an offer letter and contract from the proposed Irish employer (Company A), letters from two Pakistani employers (Company B and Company C), bank statements, payslips, schooling and examination certificates, a police character certificate and insurance documentation.
• The visa application was refused at first instance in a decision dated 24 August 2022. The refusal cited principally insufficient documentation, inadequate finances, an absence of demonstrated ties to the home country and a failure to prove the applicant would observe visa conditions.
• The Plaintiff, through solicitors, appealed the refusal on 21 September 2022 and furnished further documents and explanations. Company B and Company C supplied letters confirming periods of employment; the Plaintiff also supplied payslips and further employer communications.
• On 19 July 2023 the Defendant (the visa appeals officer acting for the Minister) refused the appeal and upheld the first-instance refusal for reasons including: insufficient evidence of the required qualifications/experience, poor quality of employer references, contradictory documentary material (notably as to dates of schooling and claimed employment), inadequate proof of payment of wages and bank lodgements, concern about finances and a concluded likelihood that the Plaintiff would not observe visa conditions or might overstay.
• The Plaintiff sought judicial review of the appeal decision. This judgment considers those judicial review challenges and the parties' submissions.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Defendant erred in failing to take into account the Plaintiff's general employment permit issued by The Department when deciding the visa appeal.
2. Whether the Defendant's finding that the Plaintiff had not demonstrated the requisite qualifications or experience for the post (chef de partie) was rational on the documentary record before the decision‑maker.
3. Whether the Defendant breached procedural fairness by identifying apparent contradictions (notably between schooling records and an employment reference) that arose on appeal without giving the Plaintiff an opportunity to address them.
4. Whether the Defendant provided adequate reasons for concluding that the Plaintiff was likely not to observe the conditions of a visa (including a risk of overstaying and possible reliance on public funds), such that the decision was rationally grounded.
5. Whether the Defendant's conclusion that the Plaintiff did not demonstrate sufficient finances was reasonable on the available evidence, including explanations provided on appeal.
6. What standard of review applies to the impugned decision (whether the decision "flies in the face of fundamental reason and common sense").

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Defendant's appeal decision ignored a material and relevant document: the general employment permit granted by The Department, which indicated that another State body had accepted that the Plaintiff possessed sufficient skill to fill the advertised post.
• Given the documentary material showing work as a chef de partie since 2018, the Defendant did not give adequate reasons for rejecting the Plaintiff's claimed experience and competence.
• It was procedurally unfair for the Defendant to rely on a purported contradiction between schooling records and an employment reference (from Company C) when that reference had been submitted only on appeal and the Plaintiff was not given an opportunity to address the point.
• The Defendant's conclusion that the Plaintiff would be likely to breach visa conditions or overstay was irrational and unsupported; the Plaintiff had been in continuous full-time employment, provided bank evidence and had explained a temporary dip in balance as a loan to a family member that was subsequently repaid.
• The Plaintiff's prospective employer in The State had offered a salary (in the region of €30,000), had paid the employment-permit fee, would fund the Plaintiff's travel and had arranged initial accommodation—facts that undermined any concern about a likely burden on public funds.

Defendant's Arguments

• The grant of an employment permit by The Department is not binding on the Defendant when deciding visa applications. The permit does not relieve the Plaintiff from establishing qualifications and experience in the visa process.
• The Defendant had expressly stated that all documents submitted were taken into consideration; absent evidence to the contrary the Court should accept that statement (relying on established authorities).
• The Defendant was entitled to treat apparent contradictions in the documentary record as a ground for doubt; the relevant employer letters and payslips were of poor quality (e.g., mobile contact numbers, poor headed paper, handwritten payslips) and did not corroborate lodgements in bank statements or revenue documentation.
• The Defendant provided legitimate reasons for concern about finances and the risk of overstaying; the threshold for judicial interference on rationality grounds is high and the Plaintiff had not crossed it.
• Finally, even if some points were arguable, the Court should be cautious about substituting its own view of the evidence for that of the administrative decision‑maker.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's reasoning proceeds in identifiable steps, applying the authorities cited and the evidence before the decision-maker to the central legal and factual questions.

1. Definition and context of the role:

   The Court explained the meaning of "chef de partie" (a station chef in charge of a particular area of a kitchen) and observed that the designation does not denote a uniform level of expertise: the required standard depends on the nature of the employer (e.g., a four-star restaurant versus a kebab/fast-food outlet).

2. Employment permit: relevance and omission:

   Applying the line of authority (notably AA & Ors and S v Minister for Justice), the Court accepted the legal proposition that while an employment permit is not conclusive, it is nonetheless a relevant document that cannot simply be ignored. The appeal decision made no mention of the employment permit or any analysis of it. The Court concluded as a factual finding that the permit had been ignored. That omission amounted to a failure to consider a relevant matter and was therefore an error of law.

3. Failure to assess employer support and job-level:

   The Court noted the Defendant made no mention of the Irish employer's offer details (salary at approximately €30,000, payment of the employment-permit fee, provision of initial accommodation and funding of travel). The Court held that the decision-maker should have given weight to these matters when assessing whether the Plaintiff had the experience and the means to take up the employment. Relatedly, the decision contained no analysis of the level of chef de partie required for the advertised role (a kebab/fast-food outlet), which made the decision's insistence on a high level of prior culinary experience difficult to justify.

4. Procedural fairness and the late employer letter:

   The Court examined the Defendant's reliance on an apparent contradiction between the Plaintiff's schooling records and a letter from Company C (the Royalton Hotel) asserting full‑time employment from August 2018. Because that reference had only been submitted on appeal, the Plaintiff had not had an earlier opportunity to explain the perceived inconsistency. The Court held that fairness required the Plaintiff be afforded some opportunity to address the point: the contradiction was susceptible of reasonable explanations (e.g. differing school hours, evening work, domestic cooking experience, or a low-level chef de partie role). The failure to permit such explanation was unfair and constituted error.

5. Rationality of the conclusion that the Plaintiff would not observe visa conditions:

   The Court applied Mukovska and found the Defendant's reasoning on the likelihood of non‑observance of visa conditions to be insubstantial—a "bald assertion" lacking sufficient rational basis. The only discernible ground for concern was the state of the Plaintiff's bank account (a temporary low balance), which had been explained as a family loan that was subsequently repaid. The decision did not meaningfully explain why that temporary fluctuation justified a firm conclusion that the Plaintiff would overstay or rely on public funds; nor did it explain what variation of permission the Plaintiff might seek and why that was likely. The Court considered this part of the decision to be inadequately reasoned and thus unsustainable.

6. Finances:

   The Court reviewed the documentary record (bank statements, payslips, employer assurances) and the explanations given for a temporary dip in balance. In context—where the Plaintiff had a long-term job offer, a reasonable salary, and employer assistance for travel and initial accommodation—the Court held that the Defendant's conclusion on inadequate finances was not adequately supported by the reasons given and could not stand.

7. Remedial and procedural considerations:

   Having identified the errors above (ignoring the employment permit and employer support, unfair treatment regarding the late employer letter, and inadequate reasoning on visa-condition adherence and finances), the Court concluded that the appeal decision should be set aside. The Court addressed mootness (the permit and the original offer had dates that had since expired) but found the proceedings were not moot: leaving the appeal decision extant would disadvantage the Plaintiff in any future visa application because applicants must disclose prior visa refusals. The Court therefore proceeded to make a substantive ruling rather than dismissing the case as academic.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: The Court concluded that the Plaintiff is entitled to an order setting aside the appeal decision dated 19 July 2023. APPEAL DECISION DATED 19 JULY 2023 SET ASIDE.

Implications and immediate consequences (as drawn from the opinion):

• The Defendant's appeal decision of 19 July 2023 has been quashed for the reasons set out above: failure to consider a relevant document (the employment permit), failure to give the Plaintiff an opportunity to answer an apparent contradiction arising only on appeal, and failure to provide adequate reasons for conclusions as to finances and likely non‑observance of visa conditions.
• The judgment does not purport to substitute the Court's view for that of the Defendant on the merits of the visa application; rather, it identifies legal and procedural defects in the decision-making process that require setting aside the appeal decision.
• The Court found the proceedings not to be moot despite the expiry of the original permit and the two-year nature of the job offer, because the existence of an extant refused appeal decision would have a practical disadvantage for any future visa application by the Plaintiff.
• The Court invited the parties to make brief written submissions within two weeks on the precise terms of the final order, on costs and any other consequential matters. A further hearing (mention) was listed for 10:30 hours on 19 March 2025 to make final orders.
• The judgment applies and interprets existing authorities rather than creating new precedent; it illustrates the application of settled principles about the evidential weight of employment permits, procedural fairness when documents are first produced on appeal, and the need for adequate reasons when an administrative decision imputs a likelihood of breach of visa conditions.

This summary is strictly confined to the matters recorded in the provided opinion. No information has been invented or inferred beyond that text. All personal names and sensitive identifiers from the original opinion have been replaced with consistent anonymised placeholders (e.g., "Plaintiff", "Defendant", "Company A", "Company B", "Company C", "The Department", "The City", "The State", and "Judge Barr").