Z.I. v The Minister for Justice

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr. Justice Sean Gillane
• Judgment Date: 09 December 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 708
• Docket Number: Record No. 2024 754 JR

Between

Z.I.

Applicant

and

The Minister for Justice

Respondent

[2025] IEHC 708

Record No. 2024 754 JR

THE HIGH COURT

Visa application – Judicial review – Breach of fair procedures – Applicant seeking an order of certiorari – Whether the respondent breached the applicant’s right to fair procedures

Facts: The applicant, a Pakistani national, on 15 November 2022, applied for an Irish visa that would allow him to work in the State as a meat processor operative. That application was refused at first instance by the respondent, the Minister for Justice, which was communicated to the applicant by letter dated 12 January 2023. The applicant appealed that refusal. By letter dated 12 March 2024, the respondent upheld the first instance decision and refused the appeal. The applicant sought and obtained leave to apply to the High Court for the following: an order of certiorari quashing the impugned decision; an order that the appeal be remitted back before the respondent for a full review by a separate decision-maker; and a declaration that the respondent breached the applicant’s right to fair procedures as a result of the manner in which the decision-making process was undertaken. The applicant contended for a complete lack of fairness in the way in which the appeal was treated by the respondent and submitted that the respondent acted unreasonably and breached the requirements of fair procedures and natural and/or constitutional justice in the manner in which the appeal was conducted.

Held by Gillane J that the decision can only be struck down where it is found to be unreasonable, irrational and/or in breach of fair procedures, citing K v Minister for Justice [2022] IEHC 582 and I.S.O.F. v Minister for Justice [2010] IEHC 386. Gillane J held that the part of the appeal decision related to the ‘OB’ ground for refusal ("Obligations to return to home country have not been deemed sufficient") was expressed in terms which could be correctly described as arbitrary, irrational and/or unreasonable; there was nothing in the decision to indicate what the decision-maker had addressed his mind to and what had been accepted and/or rejected, which made the process of informed review impossible. It was difficult for Gillane J to see the basis on which the respondent could say that there was “no evidence” in support of the statement that accommodation was available and being paid for by the employer; the letter referred to was the evidence. Gillane J held that the respondent was entitled to reject or disbelieve that evidence or to prefer other evidence but to say that there was no evidence, when evidence had been submitted to deal with the very concern raised, was an irrational approach. Gillane J held that this irrationality contaminated the entire decision under that heading, and he was not prepared to sever that part of the reasoning from the decision on the basis that the respondent asserted that the applicant had not shown that a “contract was in place”.

Gillane J made an order quashing the impugned decision made by the respondent. Gillane J did not propose making an order remitting the matter for further consideration.

Application granted.

JUDGMENT delivered by Mr. Justice Sean Gillane on 9 December 2025

Introduction

1 On the 15 ^th of November 2022, the applicant, who is a Pakistani national, applied for an Irish visa that would allow him to work in the State as a meat processor operative.

2 This application was refused at first instance by the respondent, which was communicated to the applicant by letter dated the 12 ^th of January 2023.

3 The applicant appealed this refusal, as was his entitlement. By letter dated the 6 ^th of March 2023, the applicant's solicitor delivered appeal submissions together with further documentation to the respondent in support of his appeal.

4 By letter dated the 12 ^th of March 2024, the respondent upheld the first instance decision and refused the appeal. It is this decision and the respondent's approach to the appeal that gives rise to this application for judicial review.

5 The applicant had previously been refused an Irish visa on the 26 ^th of May 2022, which was upheld on appeal on the 30 ^th of August 2022. The agreed position of the parties is that this refusal has no bearing on the issues to be determined in this case.

Factual Background

6 Prior to making his application on the 15 ^th of November 2022, the applicant had already obtained a work permit from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment.

7 The applicant intended to work under a general employment permit and had not sought a critical skills employment permit.

8 His stated intention was to work as a general operative in a well-known meat factory in County Mayo, which had offered him full time employment at a rate of €441.00 per week, subject to the visa application. The underlying basis of his application was what was said to be two years' experience working in a meat shop in Pakistan. A letter from his former employer was included in the application.

9 Another relevant feature of the factual background is that the applicant claimed to have accommodation available to him, paid for by his prospective employer and arranged through an established local auctioneer. A letter from the auctioneer was submitted as part of the original application.

10 It will be necessary to refer to the decisions at first instance and on appeal in some detail in order to understand the case advanced by the applicant.

11 The expressed grounds for refusal at first instance in the letter of the 12 ^th of January 2023 were as follows:

“ ID:—Insufficient documentation submitted in support of the application:—please see link to ‘Documents Required’ as displayed on our website — www.irishimmigration.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 or experience to undertake your proposed employment in the State.

• — The experience certificate from [the meat shop] covering the period between 10 February 2020 and 5 April 2022 has been deemed as insufficient proof of previous employment. You have not provided any payslips, nor is there any evidence of payment of any salary in your submitted bank statement. The letter submitted does not contain any contact details and it is not possible for the Visa Officer to verify its contents.

• — Accommodation Plan, you included a letter from [the auctioneer] who state you will be taking up residence at [an address in County Mayo]. This is deemed insufficient proof of accommodation. Insufficient detail has been submitted to show a contract is in place and it is not clear who is financing your proposed stay at the property.

F: — Finances—Finances shown have been deemed insufficient or incomplete

(For reasons explained below, it is unnecessary to quote from this part of the decision.)

OB:—Obligations to return to home country have not been deemed sufficient. The visa sought is for a specific purpose and duration: You have not satisfied the visa officer that such conditions would be observed. Information supplied by you concerning your personal, economic and family circumstances has been deemed as insufficient to fully satisfy the visa officer that the conditions of the visa would be fully observed if granted.”

12 As noted above, the applicant appealed by letter dated the 6 ^th of March 2023. Further documentation was submitted by the applicant to address the grounds for refusal identified at first instance and a number of submissions were made on his behalf.

13 In relation to the first issue concerning relevant qualifications or experience, the applicant's solicitor explained that the applicant had been paid in cash, which was said to be a normal practice in Pakistan, and a further letter from his former employer dated the 13 ^th of February 2023 containing contact details was submitted.

14 In relation to the second issue regarding accommodation, the applicant's solicitor referred to the letter submitted by the auctioneer confirming the position in respect of accommodation and pointed out that the auctioneer's contact details had been set out in that letter.

15 Further, in that regard, the applicant's solicitor also provided details in relation to the applicant's sister-in-law and brother-in-law, who were living and working in Ireland, and a letter confirming that his brother-in-law would provide financial help to the applicant upon his arrival in Ireland.

16 In addition, a further letter was provided by the applicant's prospective employer which confirmed that they would be paying for his accommodation, which had been arranged through the auctioneer, and that they were looking forward to the applicant starting employment with them.

17 In relation to the ground for refusal entitled ‘Finances’, it appears that the applicant's solicitor provided further detailed information in relation to the applicant's financial position. As a result, this ground for refusal appears to have fallen away and did not feature as part of the appeal decision (“the impugned decision”). There were no further submissions in that regard before me.

18 In relation to the ground for refusal entitled ‘Obligations to return to home country have not been deemed sufficient’, it was submitted on behalf of the applicant that he had strong ties in his home country of Pakistan and was married to a woman there with whom he shared three children. It was submitted that his prospective employment was a full-time job, that his permit would not allow him to work anywhere else and that his employer was covering the cost of his accommodation. The applicant also confirmed by way of affidavit that he would observe the conditions of the visa.

19 On the 12 ^th of March 2024, the...