M.M. v Minister for Justice

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Conleth Bradley
• Judgment Date: 19 February 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 102
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: Record No. 2023/1382JR

Between/

M.M.

Applicant

and

The Minister for Justice

Respondent

[2025] IEHC 102

Record No. 2023/1382JR

AN ARD-CHÚIRT

THE HIGH COURT

Judicial review – Visa application – Employment – Applicant seeking to quash the respondent’s decision refusing the applicant’s application for a visa – Whether it was unlawful for the respondent to take issue with certain documents on appeal in circumstances where no issue was taken with those documents at first instance

Facts: The applicant applied to the High Court for judicial review seeking to quash the decision of the respondent, the Minister for Justice (the Minister), dated 4 September 2023 refusing the applicant’s application for a long stay “D” employment visa. The applicant complained that it was unlawful for the Minister to take issue with certain documents on appeal, in circumstances where the applicant contended that no issue was taken with those documents at first instance. Whilst no fundamental right of the applicant was claimed to be affected by the appeal decision dated 4 September 2023, Mr O’Dwyer SC, on behalf of the applicant, framed his substantive argument around fair procedures as between the first instance decision i.e. the refusal dated 17 August 2022 and the decision on appeal i.e. the decision dated 4 September 2023 when the applicant was informed that his visa application had not been successful and was refused.

Held by Bradley J that, having examined the detail of those decisions, he did not consider that there was any unfairness as to how the Minister dealt with the appeal from the first instance decision in the case. Bradley J noted that the first instance decision dated 17 August 2022 advised the applicant that the strength of his overall application had been diminished due to the failure to provide sufficient supporting documentation, in that insufficient evidence had been submitted to demonstrate that the applicant had the relevant qualifications/employment experience to undertake his proposed employment in the State and no training/qualification certificates had been submitted with the applicant’s application; further, the decision stated that the finances which were furnished had been deemed to be insufficient. In addition, generally, aside from issues of procedural fairness and illegality (which did not, in Bradley J’s view, arise on the facts of the case), notwithstanding the invitation on behalf of the applicant to do otherwise, Bradley J did not think that it was a matter for a court in an application for judicial review to evaluate that evidence or documentation on the merits and as to the question of employment, in order to come to a different decision, i.e., to determine, for example, that the three references submitted were sufficient to meet the requirements of employment as a chef de partie or to express any view as to whether, as a matter of public policy, chefs de partie are needed in the workforce. In addition to reviewing the decisions sought to be impugned through the prism of fairness, when examined from the perspective of the application of unreasonableness/irrationality, Bradley J found that the reasoning in the first instance refusal dated 17 August 2022 and the decision on appeal dated 4 September 2023, led to conclusions which could be said follow from the premises and were reasonable, citing State (Keegan & Lysaght) v Stardust Victims Compensation Tribunal [1986] I.R. 642 and O’Keeffe v An Bord Pleanála [1993] 1 I.R. 39.

Bradley J made an order refusing the applicant’s application for reliefs by way of judicial review.

Application refused.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Conleth Bradley delivered on the 19 ^th day of February 2025

INTRODUCTION

1 This application for judicial review seeks to quash the decision of the Minister for Justice (“the Minister”) dated 4 ^th September 2023 refusing the applicant's application for a long stay “D” employment visa.

2 The applicant is a national of Pakistan, born on 19 ^th August 2000.

3 The Statement of Grounds sets out that he has worked in the hospitality sector and as a chef in Pakistan since in or around March 2018.

4 On 22 ^nd February 2022, following a hiring process, the applicant was offered employment by Zaib Foods t/a Namaste India, located at 83 King Street North, Dublin 7 as a chef de partie (station chef).

5 On 24 ^th June 2022, the applicant was granted a General Employment Permit by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (it was submitted on behalf of the applicant that the permit cost €1,000 and was paid for by his prospective employer).

6 In or around July 2022, being a visa-required national, the applicant applied to the Minister for a long stay “D” employment visa in order to take up this employment. It is the refusal of this visa, first on 17 ^th August 2022 and confirmed on appeal on 4 ^th September 2023, which is the subject of this challenge by way of judicial review.

7 Leave was granted to apply for judicial review by the High Court (Hyland J.) on 22 ^nd January 2024.

8 The applicant's Statement of Grounds was dated 27 ^th November 2023 and was grounded on an affidavit of the applicant sworn on 13 ^th November 2023. An affidavit was sworn by Mr. Kamran Rasheed on 14 ^th November 2023, who, at the time, was the applicant's prospective employer and a director of Zaib Foods Limited trading as Namaste India. Mr. Muhammad Hasan, Director of Bee Quality Foods Limited, later swore an affidavit on 11 ^th October 2024 by way of update, stating that Zaib Foods Limited had ceased trading and its business and operations had been transferred to Bee Quality Foods Ltd and he confirmed the company's intention to employ the applicant on a full time basis in Namaste India subject to his visa application. Ms. Helen Moakley Solicitor of Thomas Coughlan & Co solicitors, who were instructed on the applicant's behalf, also swore an affidavit for the purposes of satisfying the requirements of Practice Direction HC81.

9 On behalf of the Minister, an affidavit was sworn by Ms. Melissa Brennan, Higher Executive Officer, Visa Division, Immigration Service Delivery of the Department of Justice, which was date stamped as filed in the Central Office of the High Court on 5 ^th July 2024 and which grounded the Statement of Opposition dated 4 ^th July 2024.

10 Colm O'Dwyer SC and Cillian Bracken BL appeared on behalf of the applicant. David Leonard BL appeared on behalf of the Minister.

FIRST INSTANCE DECISION DATED 17 ^TH AUGUST 2022

11 On 17 ^th August 2022, the Minister (through the Visa section of the Irish Consulate) communicated the decision of the Irish Immigration Service to refuse the applicant's application for an Irish Visa (“the first instance decision”).

12 Whilst a number of reasons were set out in the first instance decision, the reasons given for refusal which are relevant to this application for judicial review related to insufficient documentation and finances which were deemed insufficient.

13 This letter stated inter alia as follows:

“ The application was rejected due to the following reasons:

ID:-Insufficient documentation submitted in support of the application:-please see link to “Documents Required” as displayed on our website-www.irishimmigtation.ie

The strength of the overall application has been diminished due to the failure to provide sufficient supporting documentation in the following areas:

• — Insufficient evidence submitted to demonstrate that you have the relevant qualifications/employment experience to undertake your proposed employment in the State. No training/qualification certificates have been submitted with your application…

F:—Finances shown have been deemed insufficient.

• — You have not submitted a bank statement to cover the six-month period prior to application. Your submitted statement runs from 4th July to 20th July.

• — Although you have submitted letters from employers and wage slips, there is no evidence of you being paid for your stated employment in the form of lodgements to your bank account.

• — The letter from your proposed employer states that accommodation will be arranged for you on your arrival at Apartment 17, Crosby Yard, Oscar Road, Dublin 3, D03 RY6 65, but no evidence of how this would be financed has been submitted. No proof of ownership has been provided. No bank statements from proposed employer have been submitted.

• — It is also not stated who will pay for this accommodation or how much it will cost…”

OC:—Observe the conditions of the visa – the visa sought is for a specific purpose and duration:—the applicant has not satisfied the Visa Officer that such conditions would be observed.

OB:—Obligations to return to home country not shown – e.g. no social, economic or professional ties in home country shown…”

APPEAL DATED 13TH OCTOBER 2022

14 On 13 ^th October 2022 the applicant's solicitor, Thomas Coughlan & Co., Solicitors, submitted a very detailed appeal which enclosed a number of certificates and letters.

APPEAL DECISION DATED 4TH SEPTEMBER 2023

15 By letter dated 4 ^th September 2023, Ms. Jenny Holmes, Visa Appeals, Visa Division in the Immigration Service Delivery Section of the Department of Justice, informed the applicant that his visa appeal application had been examined by a Visa Appeals Officer in the Visa Division. The letter stated that the Visa Appeals Officer had taken all the documentation and information submitted with the application, at first instance and on appeal, into consideration and that his application had not been successful and the visa application had been refused.

16 The letter from Ms. Holmes, on behalf of the Minister for Justice, dated 4 ^th September 2023, set out the reasons for the refusal of the visa application as follows:

“ ID:—Insufficient documentation submitted in support of the application:

• • Insufficient evidence submitted to demonstrate that you have the relevant qualifications/employment...