Masood v Minister for Justice (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This judgment records a judicial review brought by an Applicant (a national of Country A who has resided in Country B as a refugee for approximately 20 years) challenging the Respondent's refusal to grant an employment visa necessary, in addition to an employment permit, for lawful employment in The State.

Key facts (as recorded in the judgment):

• The Applicant required two separate authorisations to take up employment in The State: an employment permit issued by Department B and an employment visa issued by Department A (the Respondent's Department).
• The Applicant had been granted an employment permit (valid 28 February 2023 to 27 February 2025) but did not travel to take up employment because his application for an employment visa was refused. A subsequent employment permit application was refused, in part because the earlier permit had not been taken up.
• The Applicant's prospective employer in The State was a limited liability company operating a restaurant franchise (described in the judgment as a Camille Thai franchise). The role was described in the employer's documentation and the employment contract as "chef de partie".
• The Applicant completed an online visa application on 7 February 2023 and attended a Visa Application Centre in The City on 13 February 2023. The first-instance visa refusal issued on 28 February 2023, with reasons categorised under headings recorded in the decision as ID (Insufficient documentation), F (Finances), OB (Obligations to return) and OC (Observe visa conditions).
• On 25 April 2023 the Applicant's solicitor submitted an appeal with additional documentation (including an employer reference from the Applicant's employer in Country B, a copy of the Irish employment contract, company financial documents from the prospective employer, and other advertising and contractual materials relating to the Irish job). The employer reference stated the Applicant had been employed as a chef de partie in Country B since June 2016, was paid in cash and did not have payslips or tax documents.
• The appeal was refused by the Respondent by a decision dated 4 December 2023 (the "impugned decision"). The impugned decision relied principally on ID, F and OC categories (notably omitting OB on appeal), and stated, among other things, that the employer reference "cannot be verified" and that the Applicant had not shown qualification to be employed as a "head chef" (an apparent mismatch with the contract and permit which referred to "chef de partie").
• The Applicant applied for leave to bring judicial review proceedings; leave was granted by order of Judge Hyland on 15 April 2024. The proceedings included affidavits sworn by the Applicant, his solicitor and the prospective employer; the Respondent filed a statement of opposition with an affidavit sworn by Officer Brennan (a Higher Executive Officer in the Visa Division of Department A).
• By order of Judge Bolger on 7 February 2025, the Applicant was permitted to file an amended statement of grounds adding a plea that the Respondent had unlawfully fettered her discretion; the Respondent filed an amended statement of opposition on the same date.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Respondent brought a lawful assessment to bear on the Applicant's current employment in Country B (i.e., whether the decision-maker unreasonably concluded that the employer reference "could not be verified" without taking verification steps).
2. Whether the Respondent validly found that the Applicant lacked the qualifications to perform the proposed employment (the court examined an apparent mischaracterisation of the post as "head chef" when the paperwork referred to "chef de partie").
3. Whether there was a lawful basis for the Respondent's finding that the Applicant would not observe the conditions of a visa (OC ground).
4. Ancillary questions: (a) whether any error in the impugned decision could be cured by other, unchallenged reasons; and (b) whether relief should be refused on discretionary grounds because of alleged lack of candour by the Applicant.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Respondent acted irrationally and/or failed to apply fair procedures by concluding that information in the employer reference "could not be verified" without taking any active steps to verify it despite the reference containing a postal address, a business-type email, a Whatsapp contact and a landline number and expressly inviting contact.
• The decision-maker erred in treating the Applicant as seeking to work as a "head chef" when the employment contract and the employment permit described the post as "chef de partie"; that factual error had potential material significance.
• The Respondent unlawfully fettered her discretion by rigidly applying published documentary criteria (for example expecting bank statements, tax records, a contract or payslips) without properly considering the Applicant's entrenched factual circumstances as an Afghan refugee in Country B who, the Applicant said, was not permitted to work or open a bank account and was paid in cash.
• The Respondent failed to give adequate reasons which would allow the Applicant to understand why the materials supplied were regarded as insufficient or what further documentation would have satisfied the decision-maker.
• Although the Respondent alleged inconsistencies and a lack of candour in the Applicant's papers, the Applicant swore supplementary affidavits explaining the discrepancies (including provision of a modified registration card issued by an international agency) and submitted that the inconsistencies were not deliberate and should not defeat discretionary relief.

Respondent's Arguments

• The decision-maker had a lawful discretion to weight and evaluate documents and to conclude that, on balance, the supporting documentation was insufficient; the finding that the employer reference "cannot be verified" was an exercise of that evaluative discretion.
• The Respondent relied on published documentary criteria and submitted that the Applicant had been put on notice of the requirements; the absence of specified forms of documentation (bank statements, payslips, tax records) justified the refusal.
• The Respondent asserted that certain averments in Officer Brennan's affidavit were explanatory and relevant; where parts of that affidavit strayed into post-decision reasoning those parts could be disregarded.
• The Respondent argued that the Applicant's prospective employer's affidavit contained material that was not before the decision-maker and that new material should not generally be admitted to support a challenge where it was not available to the decision-maker at the relevant time.
• The Respondent raised the Applicants' documentary inconsistencies and relied on lack of candour as potentially disentitling the Applicant to discretionary relief.
• The Respondent also argued that the legal bar to show irrationality is high and that the decision was a qualitative assessment which, it was submitted, disclosed an essential rationale.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Preliminary issue — affidavit content:

The Court first addressed a preliminary objection to parts of Officer Brennan's affidavit, namely that paragraphs contained argumentative statements, opinion and post-decision explanations. Applying the authorities on post-decision rationalisation (including RAS Medical, Ermakov and MNN), the Court disallowed those parts of the affidavit that amounted to ex post facto reasoning or that went beyond the deponent's direct knowledge and therefore disregarded them for the purpose of reviewing the impugned decision.

Duty to give reasons and adequacy:

The Court reviewed the impugned decision in the light of the established duty to give reasons (Mallak; TAR; Connelly). It noted that the impugned decision was a relatively short document. While brevity is not fatal, reasons must be sufficiently clear and cogent to permit the affected person to understand why the decision was reached and to enable a court to undertake effective judicial review. The Court found the impugned decision's reasons on the ID, F and OC grounds were not adequate in this sense.

Verification obligation and employer reference:

Central to the Court's analysis was the conclusion that the decision-maker had concluded the employer reference "cannot be verified" without demonstrating any active steps to verify it. The Court emphasised that to "verify" means to check or substantiate the truth of the statements in the reference; the document contained contact details and an invitation to be contacted. The Court drew upon S and TAR to say that it was unreasonable to dismiss such a reference without attempting to check available contacts. The absence of any evidence of verification steps meant the conclusion — that the information could not be verified — was unreasonable.

Application of documentary policy (email addresses and "gmail"):

The Respondent contended that departmental policy required business (not free webmail) addresses for verification. The Court examined the extract of the Department's website relied upon and found it did not, in terms, exclude "gmail" addresses; moreover, the Respondent could not rely on post-decision assertions to import a stricter policy. The Court therefore concluded there was no rational basis recorded for treating a "gmail" address as necessarily detrimental and that the policy was not lawfully applied in this instance.

"Head chef" / factual error:

The impugned decision described the Applicant as seeking to be employed as a "head chef", whereas the employment contract and the employment permit referred to "chef de partie". The Applicant had previously raised this error. The Respondent sought to characterise it as a slip with no material impact, but the Court found that a post-decision attempt to explain away the error could not be relied upon. The mischaracterisation was material to the assessment of qualifications and the overall evaluation.

Insistence on documentation; alleged fettering of discretion:

The Court considered the Respondent's insistence on contracts, payslips, bank statements and tax records notwithstanding the Applicant's stated inability to provide them because of his refugee status in Country B (no legal right to work, no bank account, paid in cash). Relying on Vishteh, the Court held that a decision-maker should not insist on documents that are impossible for an applicant to provide and that rigid application of a documentation policy may amount to an unlawful fettering of discretion (Mishra; GW; Crawford). The Court concluded the decision-maker had applied departmental policy inflexibly and had not engaged with the Applicant's particular circumstances.

Credibility of the Irish job offer:

The Court emphasised that the Respondent discounted a range of documents in the Applicant's file which were independent of the Applicant (employment permit from Department B, a letter of offer, employer company accounts, property purchase contract, job advertisements and a signed employment contract). In the absence of adequate reasons for discounting these independent materials, and given that the appeal-stage decision engaged a distinct and free-standing concern about the credibility of the proposed employment, the Court held the Applicant should have been given notice of that concern and an opportunity to address it (Olatunji; BW; NI). The failure to do so was a breach of fair procedures in the Court's view.

OC (Observe conditions) ground and omissions:

The Court found the OC reasoning to be general and formulaic — stating that information concerning personal, economic and family circumstances was "insufficient" — without explaining how the specific evidence submitted led to that conclusion. The Court also observed that OB (obligations to return) was a ground at first instance but did not feature in the appeal decision; if OB had been accepted, the Court said the impugned decision should have explained why that did not affect OC. The absence of articulated reasoning led the Court to conclude the OC finding lacked an adequate basis (citing Mukovska on defective reasoning).

Whether the decision could stand on other grounds:

The Respondent argued the decision could survive on other, untainted elements. The Court considered the requirement for severance and partial remittal (BD) and concluded that the errors identified were central to the impugned decision and that there were no viable untainted foundations on which it could stand; remittal rather than piecemeal severance was therefore appropriate.

Lack of candour and discretionary relief:

The Respondent pointed to a number of documentary inconsistencies and alleged lack of candour (residence entries, marital status, identity details on a registration card). The Applicant swore further affidavits explaining the inconsistencies and produced supporting material (including a modified registration card and materials explaining difficulties faced by refugees in Country B). The Court accepted that there were material errors in the original paperwork and that the lack of candour was a matter of concern, but concluded that on the facts and in light of the Court's other findings the inconsistencies did not warrant refusal of relief on discretionary grounds (distinguishing MBB and Kant where lack of candour was more serious). The Court issued a caution that lack of candour is a serious matter and might be decisive in a different factual matrix.

Remedy and costs:

The Court concluded that certiorari should be granted quashing the Respondent's decision dated 4 December 2023 and that the employment visa application should be remitted to a different official within Department A for further consideration. The Court indicated that costs should follow the event subject to submissions on the precise form of order.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

The Court made the following dispositive orders:

• The impugned decision dated 4 December 2023 is quashed (certiorari granted).

• The employment visa application is remitted to a different official within Department A for further consideration.

Implications:

• Direct effect: The Applicant's visa refusal is set aside and the application must be reconsidered by a different official; the Applicant may thereby obtain a fresh and lawfully reasoned decision on the available material and any additional material properly placed before the decision-maker.
• Reasoning implications: The decision reiterates established principles — that reasons must be adequate, that decision-makers must not rely on post-decision rationalisations, that verification steps should be taken where reasonable, and that policies must not be applied rigidly to fetter discretion.
• Discretionary relief: Although the Respondent raised lack of candour, the Court declined to refuse relief on that basis given the central defects it found in the decision-making process; however the judgment warns that more serious or deliberate lack of candour can justify denial of discretionary remedies in other cases.
• No novel precedent: The Court applied established authority and did not purport to set new law; the decision applies and illustrates existing principles of reason-giving, fair procedures, verification and the prohibition on fettering discretion.