High Court allows visa refusal challenge, quashing decision on grounds of insufficient evidence for competence and finances.

THE HIGH COURT

[Record No. HJR 2023-1227]

[2025] IEHC 475

BETWEEN

AHSAN RAZA

APPLICANT

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE

RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Barr delivered electronically on the 28th day of February 2025.

Introduction.

1. The applicant is a Pakistani national of 25 years of age, having been born on 13 April 1999.

2. In June 2022, the applicant was offered employment as a chef de partie in a kebab restaurant in Moate, Co Westmeath. Having obtained a general permit of employment from the Department for Enterprise Trade and Employment (hereinafter ‘DETE’) permitting him to work in such capacity in Ireland, the applicant made an online application for a long stay visa to reside and enter employment in the State.

3. The applicant does not possess any formal qualification as a chef. However, he submitted documentation showing that he had worked as a chef de partie since 2018, first with a hotel and latterly, and continuing up to the time of the submission of his application, in a restaurant in a different city in Pakistan. He also submitted a copy of the letter offering him employment as a chef de partie in Ireland, together with the signed contract of employment relating to that position.

4. The applicant was unsuccessful in his application at first instance. He was also unsuccessful on appeal. In essence, the respondent was not satisfied that the applicant had submitted sufficient evidence of his competence or experience working as a chef de partie. The respondent was also unsatisfied with the level of the applicant’s finances or that he would obey the conditions that may be affixed to his visa.

5. The grounds of challenge to that decision and the grounds on which the respondent resists that challenge will be set out later in the judgment.

Background.

6. As previously noted, the applicant obtained a general employment permit from DETE for a two-year period valid from 24 June 2022 to 23 June 2024. That permit was issued under s.3A(2)(c) of the Employment Permits Act, 2006 (as amended).

7. On 29 June 2022, the applicant submitted his online application for a long stay D visa. As part of that application, he submitted the following documents: a signed employment visa application form; a copy of his passport, birth certificate, his family registration certificate and national identity cards, in respect of his parents and himself; a letter dated 24 June 2022 from DETE informing him that a permit had been granted in accordance with the Employment Permits Act, 2006, together with an electronic version of the two-year general work permit as a chef de partie with a Ayan K Limited;

a letter from the proposed Irish employer dated 29 June 2022; a further letter from the employer dated 9 December 2015 regarding the registration of the company as a food business establishment, listing the main activities as fast food, pizza, kebab and Indian food; two contracts of employment (one signed; one unsigned); copies of his intermediate schooling results dated 22 September 2020 and a secondary school certificate dated 12 November 2018 and intermediate and secondary education certificates also dated 12 November 2018; a bank statement for a current account in the name of the prospective employer covering the period 1 June 2022 to 20 July 2022; a bank statement in the applicant’s name dated 21 July 2022 covering the period from 20 September 2021 to 5 July 2022; travel and health insurance documentation; an undated letter from his employer in Pakistan, confirming that he was employed by them as a chef de partie at that time; a police character certificate dated 15 July 2022; a copy of his CV; and a Covid immunisation certificate.

8. The certificate issued by the applicant’s employer in Pakistan stated that he had been working in their restaurant as a chef de partie from 3 September 2021 to date.

9. In a decision dated 24 August 2022, the Minister refused his application for a long stay visa. It was refused primarily on the basis that insufficient documentation had been submitted in support of the application. In addition, the decision stated that the finances disclosed on his application had been insufficient; the obligation to return to his home country was not shown, e.g. no social, economic or professional ties in his home country had been demonstrated; and there was a failure to prove that he would observe the conditions of the visa. It was stated that the visa was sought for a specific purpose and duration; the applicant had not satisfied the visa officer that such conditions would be observed.

10. By letter dated 21 September 2022, the applicant, through his solicitor, submitted an appeal in relation to the visa refusal. In that letter, the solicitor set out extensive responses in relation to the issues raised in the first instance decision. In addition, the letter enclosed a number of further documents in support of the applicant’s application for a visa, including: a letter of employment from the applicant’s proposed Irish employer; a further letter showing his experience with the restaurant in Pakistan where he was working at that time; a letter showing his experience when employed by the Royalton Hotel; a signed application letter; a permission from the landlord to reside in an apartment in Ireland, with a copy of the landlord’s ID papers; the applicant’s bank statements and copies of the applicant’s latest payslips. By further letter dated 7 July 2023, the applicant’s solicitor made additional points and furnished further documentation as follows: copies of payslips from his current employer in Pakistan.

11. The further letter that had been furnished from the applicant’s current employer in Pakistan, was on headed notepaper and stated that they were again confirming that the applicant had been employed with them as a chef de partie in their restaurant since

3 September 2021 to date. They confirmed that he was employed on a full-time basis and they gave his monthly salary. The letter went on to state that they had found the applicant to be a diligent employee who attended to his duties and was highly motivated.

12. They also stated that they have been told by him that an objection had been raised regarding the payslips that had been previously submitted due to the fact that they did not bear his job title. They confirmed that they did not normally write the job title of employees on their payslips as it was not common practice to do so in Pakistan. They went on to state that due to national revenue rules in Pakistan, they could not reproduce payslips retrospectively for the applicant. However, they again confirmed that he had been, and continued to be, employed by them as a chef de partie. They finished the letter by stating that if any further information or assistance was required, the restaurant manager could be contacted on two numbers that were given in the letter.

13. The letter that was submitted from the Royalton Hotel stated that the applicant had been employed on a full-time basis in their cooking department from 1 August 2018 to 31 August 2021 at the position of chef de partie. The letter gave his monthly salary and stated that the mode of payment was in cash. It stated that during his time working with them they found him to be a hard-working individual who delivered good performance which was satisfactory to their required standards. They stated that if any further information was needed they could be contacted on a telephone number that was provided.

14. On 19 July 2023, the respondent gave her decision on the appeal, in which she refused the appeal and upheld the refusal decision that had been made at first instance.

The Challenged Decision.

15. The decision on appeal began by stating that the visa appeals officer had taken all the documentation and information submitted with the application at first instance and on appeal into consideration. The decision went on to state that the application for a long stay visa had been refused for a number of reasons. The first reason was because the applicant had provided insufficient documentation in support of the application. The

decision stated that there was insufficient evidence submitted to demonstrate that the applicant had the relevant qualifications/employment experience to undertake his proposed employment in the State. It noted that he had failed to provide any training/qualification certificates.

16. The decision went on to state that the letter from his current employer in Pakistan had been deemed insufficient as proof of employment due to the fact that the quality of the letter provided was poor. It was noted that the contact telephone number on the letter was that of a mobile phone; the headed paper was of poor quality and contained no email address, or website address for the business.

17. The decision noted that in the applicant’s online application he had stated that he had been employed by the Royalton Hotel; however, no evidence of that employment had been provided at first instance. On appeal, the letter that had been provided by the hotel stated that he had been employed on a full-time basis as a chef de partie from 1 August 2018 to 31 August 2021. It was noted that according to the documentation relating to the applicant’s schooling, he had finished his secondary education in 2020. The decision stated that it was not known how the applicant could have been in fulltime education and full-time employment simultaneously.

18. It was noted that in August 2018 the applicant had been approximately 19 years old. The decision noted that the letter from the hotel had stated that he was employed as a chef de partie from 1 August 2018. The visa appeals officer was of the opinion that that was not credible, as the applicant had no previous culinary experience at that time. The decision stated that if the applicant had in fact begun employment at that time, it was more likely to have been as a commis chef, being a novice or beginner in an culinary career path, rather than as a chef de partie, who is essentially in charge of a particular section or area of the kitchen and who would require some previous culinary experience to carry out these duties.

19. The decision further noted that no payslips for his employment with the Royalton Hotel were provided to support the claim of employment in the hotel.

20. The decision also stated that the payslips from his current employer in Pakistan had been deemed insufficient proof of employment as a chef de partie. The payslips were handwritten and did not appear as salary lodgements on the applicant’s bank account statements which had been provided. The decision noted that the applicant stated that he had been paid in cash, however, he had not provided any documentation from the revenue authorities in Pakistan which would show his income and tax pay paid in respect of the stated employment.

21. The decision stated that it was the considered opinion of the visa appeals officer, based on the foregoing, that the applicant had failed to establish by way of documentary evidence that he had either the necessary work experience or qualifications to carry out the proposed employment in the State.

22. The decision went on to state that the applicant had failed to show that he had sufficient finances. It noted that the bank statement from the proposed employer in Ireland covered the period 1 June 2022 to 20 July 2022. It was noted that that was a personal current account. No explanation had been given for its significance and why it had been submitted. It also pointed out that he had submitted a letter and payslips from his stated current employer in Pakistan; the quality of which was poor as set out elsewhere in the decision. There was insufficient evidence of the applicant having been paid for his stated employment in the Royalton Hotel, in the form of lodgements to his bank account, payslips, etc.

23. The final reason on which the applicant was refused a visa, was on the basis that the appeals officer thought that there was a likelihood that he would fail to observe the conditions of the visa if granted to him. The decision noted that the information that he had supplied concerning his personal and economic circumstances, was insufficient to satisfy the visa officer that he would observe the conditions of any visa granted, with particular regard to the use of public funds/public resources and the possible risk of overstaying in the State. A consequential concern that was raised by the circumstances was that the applicant, if granted entry to the State, may seek to change his permission to remain. The decision concluded by stating that the applicant had failed to demonstrate to the visa appeals officer that the visa should be granted for the purpose sought.

Discussion.

24. The first ground of challenge was that the decision on the appeal was flawed because it did not mention the fact that the applicant had received an employment permit from DETE allowing him to work as a chef at the restaurant. It was submitted that the finding by the respondent that the applicant had not demonstrated that he had the competence or experience working as a chef de partie, was fundamentally at odds with the conclusion reached by DETE that he possessed the necessary skills and experience to work as a chef.

25. It was submitted that the decision-maker, in failing to accord any weight to the fact that the applicant had been granted an employment permit, had not taken into account all relevant considerations and thereby had erred in stating that the applicant had provided insufficient documentation in respect of his visa application.

26. While it was accepted that the weight to be accorded to an employment permit had been a matter of some controversy in the High Court, it had been settled by the

decision of the Court of Appeal in AA & Ors v Minister for Justice [2024] IECA 57, which had approved of the dicta of Bolger J in S v Minister for Justice [2022] IEHC 578, where it had been stated that while the grant of an employment permit was not binding prima facie evidence of the person’s qualification or experience in any particular area; the fact that such a permit had been granted, could not be ignored.

27. It was submitted that in this case, where there was no mention at all of the employment permit, it was reasonable to conclude that it had been ignored by the

decision-maker on the appeal.

28. In the alternative, it was submitted that in view of the documentation that had been submitted by the applicant showing that he had worked as a chef de partie since 2018 down to the present, no adequate reasons had been given why it was considered that he had not shown that he had the necessary experience and competence to work as a chef de partie in Ireland.

29. On behalf of the respondent, it was submitted that the decision of the Court of Appeal in the AA case, clearly established that the grant of a work permit was not binding or conclusive evidence that mandated that a visa be granted, or that a decision be reached that the person had the necessary qualifications to do the particular job. It was pointed out that in the letter which had been issued by DETE in relation to the grant of the work permit, it was pointed out that the applicant would have to establish his qualifications and experience again when applying for a visa to enter and remain in the country.

30. It was also submitted that based on the decision in GK v Minister for Justice [2002] 2 IR 418, as confirmed by the Supreme Court in Sangeeta Rana and Lehrasib Ali v Minister for Justice [2024] IESC 46, the fact that decision-maker stated at the outset of this decision that all documents had been taken into consideration, had to be taken at face value, unless and until it was established by evidence that he had not taken certain documents or matters into account. Thus, it was submitted that in this case the court had to assume that the decision-maker on the appeal had had regard to the grant of the work permit.

31. It was submitted that it had been entirely within the remit of the Minister for Justice to find that the applicant did not possess sufficient qualifications and experience for the job, notwithstanding that a work permit had been issued to the applicant by DETE.

32. In relation to the standard of review that had to be applied by this Court, it was submitted that having regard to the decision in Ali v Minister for Justice [2021] IEHC 494, it had been held that the applicable standard was whether the decision to be impugned “equates to a decision which flies in the face of fundamental reason and common sense”, i.e. the test set out in O’Keeffe v An Bord Pleanála [1993] 1 IR 39 and The State (Keegan) v Stardust Compensation Tribunal [1986] IR 642. It was submitted that in the present case it could not credibly be argued that this standard had been reached by the applicant.

33. The applicant’s second point of challenge concerned the issue of fairness. It was submitted that it was unfair of the decision-maker to make a point that there was a significant contradiction in the documents submitted in relation to the fact that the applicant had been working in the hotel at the time when some of the documents submitted showed that he had been attending secondary school, when this point had never been put to the applicant. He had never been given any opportunity to comment on it. It was submitted that there may well be a reasonable explanation which would have enabled him to work in school during the day and be employed on a full-time basis by the hotel in the evening. It was submitted that whatever the reason might be, the applicant was not given an opportunity to put that reason forward. It was stated that that was fundamentally unfair.

34. In response, it was submitted on behalf of the respondent, that the decisionmaker was entitled to refer to contradictions that had arisen in the documentation that had been submitted by the applicant in support of his application. It was pointed out that the document from the hotel had only been submitted on the appeal. Therefore, there had been no opportunity for the decision-maker at first instance to comment on this apparent contradiction.

35. Counsel for the respondent further pointed out that the applicant had put in an affidavit in support of his judicial review application, but had not taken the opportunity to give any definitive explanation or answer to the apparent contradiction that had been pointed out by the decision-maker in the appeal decision.

36. In relation to the reason given in the appeal decision that the applicant was likely not to observe the conditions that may be affixed to the visa, it was stated that this

decision fell within the rubric of the decision in Mukovska v Minister for Justice [2021] IECA 340, where the court had struck down a decision for failure on the part of the

decision-maker to give any rational basis for the conclusion that the applicant was likely to fail to observe the conditions attaching to a visa. It was pointed out that in that case the visa concerned had been a student visa, whereas in the present case the application was for a long-term visa.

37. It was submitted that where the applicant was in employment in Pakistan and was seeking to enter the State to take up a long-term position of employment, it was irrational to conclude that he would be unlikely to fulfil the conditions attaching to his visa and to overstay the visa, without any evidence that that was likely to be the case.

38. In response, counsel on behalf of the respondent submitted that contrary to the applicant’s claim, the Minister had spelt out what conditions she was concerned would be breached. It was clear that the low level of the applicant’s personal finances was a cause for concern and the possibility that it could lead to a reliance on State funds or resources. In addition, the Minister was concerned that the applicant could overstay his visa his given his financial position.

39. Finally, in relation to the reason in relation to the lack of finances, it was submitted on behalf of the applicant that this was an irrational ground on which to refuse the application. This was due to the fact that the applicant had been in continuous fulltime employment since 2018. He had submitted evidence of his bank accounts. While it was accepted that this bank account had dropped to a very low level at one point, that have been explained in the submission made on behalf of the applicant for the purposes of the appeal, to the effect that he had lent a sum of money to his father to purchase a car. That sale had not gone through and the money had then been repaid to him by his father and had been relodged over time into the account.

40. It was further submitted that as the applicant was going to be in receipt of a reasonably substantial wage in the order of €30,000 in his position of employment in Ireland, there was no reason to suspect that he would become a burden on State finances. In addition, it had been stated in the documentation submitted for the appeal that his prospective employer in Ireland would cover the cost of his air fare to Ireland and had arranged accommodation for him in a flat for the first number of weeks that he would be in Ireland.

41. On behalf of the respondent, it was submitted that the threshold for establishing irrationality was high. The court would have to be satisfied that the findings made by the decision-maker flew in the face of fundamental reason and common sense. It was submitted that in this case, the Minister had a legitimate concern that the bank statements furnished by the applicant, did not provide evidence of any employment remuneration from the Royalton Hotel. It was submitted that the Minister’s findings in relation to the finances aspect, when read as a whole, flowed reasonably and rationally from the documentary evidence that had been submitted. The Minister had drawn such conclusions on the evidence as was appropriate. It was emphasised that the court should be very slow to interfere with such decisions, as recently affirmed by Binchy J in Abbas & Anor v The Minister for Justice [2021] IECA 16. That placed a high bar for the applicant seeking to quash the Minister’s decision on that basis. It was submitted that the applicant had not crossed that threshold.

Conclusions.

42. Before setting out my conclusions in this matter, it will be helpful to define what is meant by the term chef de partie. A chef de partie, which is sometimes referred to as a station chef, is the person in charge of a particular area in a kitchen.

43. It is important note that the designation of chef de partie does not constitute any universal level of expertise. In other words, a chef de partie in a four-star restaurant would be of much higher standing than a chef de partie in a takeaway restaurant.

44. The first issue that arises is whether the decision should be struck down because the decision-maker made no reference therein to the fact that the applicant had obtained a general employment permit allowing him to work as a chef de partie in Ireland.

45. The applicant did not try to argue that because DETE had issued an employment permit to him, that that was binding on the respondent when considering his application for a long stay visa. That argument had been firmly decided by the Court of Appeal in AA & Ors v Minister for Justice, which judgment is binding upon this Court.

46. Delivering the unanimous judgment of the Court of Appeal, Faherty J, preferred the reasoning in the judgment of Keane J in Akhtar v Minister for Justice & Equality [2019] IEHC 411, to that of Barrett J in Ashraf v Minister for Justice & Equality [2018] IEHC 76. Faherty J summarised her conclusion in the following way at paragraph 95:

“It follows, therefore, that the respondent was free to consider whether the person applying for a visa has the requisite qualifications and experience. The function of the Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation under the 2006 Act is wholly separate from the role of the respondent in the granting of visas to enable non-nationals (i.e. those from visa-required third countries) to apply to enter the State.”

47. The judge went on to note that in S v Minister for Justice, adopting the approach of Keane J in Akhtar, Bolger J did not consider that the work permit constituted the type of prima facie evidence that was contended for by the applicant (para. 37). However, neither did she accept that it could be ignored. In the AA case, Faherty J went on to state at para. 97, that once the employment permit was taken into account, that was sufficient. She repeated that the fact that a critical skills employment permit had been granted, did not usurp or limit the exercise of the respondent’s discretion when considering whether it was appropriate to grant a visa to the applicant.

48. Counsel for the applicant submitted that in the present case, the respondent had ignored the fact that DETE had granted the applicant an employment permit to work as a chef de partie in Ireland, because it had not been referred to in the decision. Counsel for the respondent stated that that was not correct because the decision-maker had stated at the outset of the decision that all documents submitted at first instance and appeal, had been taken into consideration.

49. Counsel referred to the decision of Bolger J in S v Minister for Justice where she had held that such a statement was sufficient to establish that documents or representations had been considered by the decision-maker unless it was reasonable to believe otherwise.

50. Counsel for the respondent stated that the decision of Hardiman J in GK v Minister for Justice had been relied upon by Bolger J. In this regard, in the GK case, Hardiman J had stated as follows:

“A person claiming that a decision making authority has, contrary to its express statement, ignored representations which it has received must produce some evidence, direct or inferential, of that proposition before he can be said to have an arguable case.”

51. Counsel for the respondent submitted that this statement of the law had been endorsed by the Supreme Court in Sangeeta Rana and Lehrasib Ali v Minister for Justice [2024] IESC 46.

52. It is clear from the decision of the Court of Appeal in the AA case, that the grant of an employment permit does not circumscribe the discretion of the Minister when considering a subsequent visa application. It is equally clear that the grant of an employment permit to do a particular job, cannot be ignored when the Minister is considering the issue of whether an applicant has the necessary skill and experience to do a particular job.

53. In the present case, the respondent did not mention the grant of the employment permit at all. It was a relevant document that was before the respondent. It established that another Minister was satisfied on the documents that had been submitted, that there was a shortage of labour in a particular segment of the market, being the sector of chef de partie in a kebab restaurant in the Moate area. In granting the employment permit it was clear that DETE accepted that there was a shortage in that sector in that location, such that the Irish employer could not find a suitably qualified Irish or EU qualified citizen who could do that work. DETE was also satisfied that the applicant had the skills required to fill the position.

54. It is hard to see how that was not ignored when it was not mentioned by the respondent one way or the other. I accept the applicant’s submission that as it was not mentioned, it is probable that it was in fact ignored. It is not saved by a formulaic statement at the start of the decision that all documents had been taken into consideration by the decision-maker on the appeal. There is not a scintilla of evidence in the decision that it was taken into consideration by the respondent. Accordingly, I find as a fact that it was ignored by the decision-maker.

55. I also accept the submission made by counsel for the applicant that no account seems to have been taken of the fact that a restaurant owner in Ireland was satisfied that the applicant was suitably skilled or experienced to work in his restaurant as a chef de partie.

56. No reference was made in the decision to the fact that the Irish employer had offered the applicant a job paying approximately €30,000 per annum. That he had paid the fee of €1,000 for the employment permit and would provide money for the applicant’s travel to Ireland, and had arranged accommodation for him on his arrival in Ireland. None of this appears to have been given any weight in the consideration of whether the applicant had the experience and skill necessary to do the job. Accordingly, I hold that the decision-maker fell into error in failing to consider a relevant matter.

57. Finally, on this aspect, there was no analysis of what level of chef de partie was required in this case. This was not a four-star restaurant. It was a kebab and fast-food outlet in Moate, Co Westmeath. Without being disrespectful to the Irish restaurant owner, he did not appear to require the services of a highly qualified or experienced chef de partie. No account seems to have been taken of this fact.

58. It is also difficult to understand how the respondent found that the applicant had not submitted sufficient documentary evidence that he had experience as a chef de partie, when the references supplied by his previous and present employers in Pakistan, confirmed that he had been employed by them since 2018 as a chef de partie in their respective establishments.

59. The decision-maker held that the letter from the Royalton Hotel was not credible because (a) it stated that the applicant had been working full-time for them as a chef de partie since 2018, when the applicant had submitted documentation showing that he had obtained secondary school exams in 2018 and 2020; and (b) that it was not credible that as a 19-year-old with no culinary experience, he had been taken on as a chef de partie in the hotel.

60. The applicant complained that he had not been given a chance to answer these issues, which arose for the first time on the appeal. The respondent relies on the dicta of Faherty J in the AA case that there is no obligation on the respondent to point out contradictions in documents that are submitted by an applicant in support of his application.

61. In addition, the respondent argued that account should be taken of the fact that the applicant did not state in his affidavit, which was sworn for the purposes of these proceedings, that he had any answer to these issues. That submission can be dealt with relatively simply because in the AA case, a similar submission had been rejected by the Court of Appeal in the following terms at para. 85:

“The function of the High Court in a judicial review (and of this Court on appeal) is to address the process whereby the respondent reached the impugned

decision. It is not for the courts to decide whether the appellant’s work experience is capable of demonstrating the necessary qualifications and experience for the job in question and it would certainly not be appropriate for an applicant in judicial review proceedings to contend for the invalidity of a

decision by reference to additional material which was not put before the

decision-maker.”

62. The court is satisfied that where there was a perceived contradiction between the applicant’s secondary school record and his letter of reference from the hotel, they should have given him some chance to address this apparent contradiction, as it had only arisen on appeal, due to the fact that the letter from the hotel had only been submitted for the purposes of the appeal.

63. There was a possibility that school times in Pakistan may not be the same as in Ireland. It might have been possible for young men to attend school during the day and work in a hotel, particularly as they may have been working primarily during the late afternoon and evening.

64. In relation to the alleged inconsistency concerning his retainer as a chef de partie, without having any previous culinary experience, that may have come about because the applicant may have had experience of helping with the cooking at home, or it is possible that he was retained initially as a chef de partie, but at a very low level e.g. in charge of cooking rice or vegetables.

65. The alleged contradictions were not glaring ones. Fairness dictates that when the respondent felt that inconsistencies were significant and when they could well be susceptible of explanation, the applicant should have been given some opportunity to explain them.

66. Turning to the portion of the decision dealing with the assertion that there was a likelihood that the applicant would fail to observe the conditions attaching to any visa that may be granted to him, the portion of the decision dealing with this aspect states that the visa appeals officer was not satisfied that the applicant would observe the conditions of the visa because the information supplied concerning his personal and economic circumstances was insufficient to satisfy the decision-maker that the conditions attaching to the visa would be observed, with particular regard to the use of public funds/public resources and the possible risk of overstaying the visa.

67. The decision further stated that a further reasonable concern was that if the applicant were granted a visa, he may seek to change or vary his permission to remain.

68. In Mukovska v Minister for Justice & Anor, the Court of Appeal struck down a refusal based on a bald assertion that the applicant would be likely not to adhere to the conditions that may be attached to his visa. Hunt J struck down the refusal based on this ground for failure on the part of the decision-maker to give adequate reasons as to why it was contended that the applicant would not obey the conditions attaching to the visa. The judge held that the applicant was entitled to know by the provision of brief reasons, precisely why her application had been refused under this ground.

69. In the present case it would appear that the reasoning why this opinion was held by the decision-maker is even less than in the Mukovska case. All that is stated is that due to the applicant’s personal and economic circumstances, there is a real likelihood that he will breach the terms of any visa that may be granted to him. This appears to ignore the fact that he was offered paid employment in the State. It also ignores the fact that he had applied for a long-stay visa. He is not in the position of someone who would be holding a short-term visa and, therefore, there may be some apprehension that he would overstay at the end of the visa period.

70. The only possible rationale given for the opinion that he is likely not to adhere to the conditions attaching to the visa, was the state of his finances in Pakistan. The bank statements submitted showed a very small credit balance at one stage. That was explained by the fact that he had made a loan to his father to purchase a car. When that purchase fell through, the money was subsequently put back into the account. Overall, the account seems to have been operated at a fairly healthy credit balance.

71. As for the assertion that he may seek to vary the terms of his visa, it is unclear what variation the applicant may seek to make to his visa, or why he would seek to make such a change.

72. Where a refusal of a visa application is going to be based on some fear of a prospective breach by the applicant of the terms of his visa conditions, there needs to be some credible basis for holding such opinion. Otherwise, this ground of refusal amounts to no more than a bald assertion: “I think you will breach the conditions of your visa, therefore, I am going to refuse to give you one”. It cannot be plausibly argued that such an arbitrary reason could be a valid ground on which to refuse a visa to an applicant who is otherwise qualified to get one.

73. Finally, the applicant was refused a visa on the basis that he had failed to establish adequate finances in Pakistan. As already noted, the applicant had explained the temporary dip in the credit balance on his account. In circumstances where he was going to be given long-term employment in Ireland; was going to receive a reasonable wage; had accommodation arranged by his prospective employer for the initial period that after his prospective arrival in Ireland and had evidence that the employer had paid for the employment permit and would fund his travel expenses to Ireland; the basis for the conclusion that the applicant did not demonstrate that he had ‘sufficient finances’, is not apparent from the decision. Accordingly, this reason cannot stand.

74. For the reasons set out herein, the court is satisfied that the applicant is entitled to an order setting aside the appeal decision of the respondent dated 19 July 2023.

75. The court has considered whether the proceedings are moot having regard to the fact that both the offer of employment and the employment permit were each for a duration of two years, both of which periods expired in 2024. While there was no evidence on this aspect, given that the job vacancy arose in 2022, it is likely that the restaurant owner has had to secure the services of another chef de partie in the interim. Accordingly, it is likely that job vacancy no longer exists.

76. However, in view of the fact that where an applicant makes a subsequent application for a visa, he has to disclose all previous visa applications, were this Court to deem these proceedings moot, that would leave the challenged appeal decision extant, meaning that the applicant would be at a considerable disadvantage in any future visa application that he may make. Accordingly, the court is satisfied that there remains a live issue between the parties, such that the proceedings are not moot.

77. As this judgment is being delivered electronically, the parties shall have two weeks within which to furnish brief written submissions on the terms of the final order and on costs and on any other matters that may arise.

78. The matter will be listed for mention at 10.30 hours on 19th March 2025 for the purpose of making final orders.