Tag Archive for: MINISTER FOR JUSTICE

Lengthy delays in the processing of Join Family visas  

As of the 29th of April 2025, the Immigration Service Delivery have updated their visa decisions page outlining which visa applications and visa appeals are currently being processed by the Dublin visa office.

A notable change is that the dates of join family visa applications currently being processed has been updated. The most recent decision made on a join family visa application, where the sponsor is in category B, was issued for an application received by the Visa Office on the 22nd of November 2023. Appeals of the same category received on the 7th of December 2022 are also now being issued with decisions.

For join family visa applications where the sponsor is in Category A, or an Irish citizen, the Department has most recently issued decisions on applications received on the 7th of August 2023. Regarding appeals of applications falling into the same category, those received on the 2nd of February 2023 have been issued with decisions.

It is unusual that applications from Category B sponsors are being processed more expeditiously than those from Category A sponsors.

The ISD business targets for the processing of Join family visa applications for sponsors in Category A is 6 months and for Category B is 12 months. These business targets are not being met and the delay in the processing of join family visas has become a notable and stressful concern for clients.

Furthermore, it is concerning that the page had previously stated that applications received on 23rd July 2023 were being processed. This processing time was in place for over six months. This would indicate a complete stalling of the processing of applications, or that extremely few applications, if any, were processed in this time frame.

This delay in processing of visas for families is a source of concern. It is resulting in long term separation of families, including children and is a source of huge stress to our clients.

For more information on the processing times for visa applications being assessed in Dublin, please see the link below:

https://www.irishimmigration.ie/visa-decisions/

Berkeley Solicitors is available to provide advice and support for anyone commencing the Visa application process.

If you have any queriers relating to the processing time for visa applications please contact Berkeley Solicitors to arrange a consultation with one of our experienced legal advisor.

This blog article has been prepared on the basis of current immigration law and policy, which is subject to change. Please keep an eye on our blog and Facebook page where articles relating to updates and changes in immigration law and policy are regularly posted.

CITIZENSHIP CEREMONY UPDATE

MINISTER FOR JUSTICE COMMENCES NEW LEGISLATION ALLOWING FOR REVOCATION OF IRISH CITIZENSHIP BY NATURALISATION

Section 19 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 empowers the Minister to revoke naturalised Irish citizenship in certain circumstances and sets out the procedure to do so.

Following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Damache v Minister for Justice [2021] IESC 6, this procedure could not be utilised as it was found to be unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court held that the process as provided for in Section 19 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 did not contain sufficient procedural safeguards to meet the high standards of natural justice applicable to a person facing such severe consequences.

The Minister for Justice Jim O’Callaghan has signed an order to recommence legislation allowing for naturalised Irish citizenship to be revoked in serious cases, effective from 7th April 2025.

We refer to our previous blog post on this topic, available here.

In a statement, Minister O’Callaghan outlines that the issues raised in the Supreme Court judgement of Damache have been addressed in the new procedure.

Section 19 of the 1956 Act (as amended) allows the Minister for Justice to revoke a certificate of naturalisation in cases where:

(1) the certificate was procured by fraud, misrepresentation whether innocent or fraudulent, or concealment of material facts or circumstances,

(2) the person has failed in their duty of fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State,

(3) the person is ordinarily resident outside Ireland for a continuous period of seven years and without reasonable excuse has not annually registered an intention to retain Irish citizenship,

(4) the person is a citizen of another country which is at war with Ireland, or

(5) the person has voluntarily acquired another citizenship.

The new procedure is as follows:

Where the Minister is satisfied that one or more of the above reasons to revoke a certificate of naturalisation exists, the Minister shall issue a notice of intention to revoke the certificate of naturalisation on the person concerned. This notice must inform the affected person of the intention to revoke their certificate of naturalisation, and set out the reasons for this.

The notice can be served on an affected person in numerous ways, including by post or electronically.

Once the notice has been issued, the affected person will have a period of 28 days to respond and make representations regarding the revocation of their citizenship.

The Minister must then notify the affected person of the decision. If the Minister decides to revoke the certificate of naturalisation, the reasons for this decision must be set out.

A person who is the subject of a decision to revoke their certificate of naturalisation will have the right to request that an independent Committee of Inquiry be held to look into the Minister’s decision.

The Committee of Inquiry will consider the Minister’s decision to revoke the certificate of naturalisation and may decide to affirm or set aside the decision.

For further information, please see the press release published by the Irish government here.

Berkeley Solicitors are available to provide support and assistance to any persons affected by the new revocation process.

This blog article has been prepared on the basis of current immigration law and policy, which is subject to change. Please keep an eye on our blog and Facebook page where articles relating to updates and changes in immigration law and policy are regularly posted.

CURRENT EXPERIENCES OF THE IMMIGRATION SERVICE DELIVERY PORTALS

In 2023, the Minister opened the Immigration Service Delivery (ISD) Forms Portal. This portal provides applicants with an opportunity to submit a number of immigration applications to the Minister. This includes an application for renewal of immigration registration, an application for naturalisation for adults and minors and other specific immigration applications including de facto partner applications and applications for extension of student permissions.

In October 2024, the Minister also launched a separate portal, “The Digital Contact Centre”. It appears that the purpose of this portal is for persons to communicate with the Minister in respect of their applications, immigration concerns. However, a number of specific immigration applications are also submitted via this portal, including an application for first time registration and also applications as the parent or spouse of an Irish citizen.

The modernisation of ISD is to be warmly welcomed.

Any progress that can make the immigration system more accessible and easier to navigate for applicants is to be commended and supported.

Applicants are facing a number of issues with these portals as they currently operate.

One of the main issues with the ISD forms portal that are clients are informing us of and we are experiencing ourselves is as follows:

Once an application is submitted via the ISD forms portal, it can no longer be accessed or updated. It is possible to log in and see the data entered, however it is not possible to have sight of the documents uploaded or to amend the application in any way.

When the application is being assessed, the ISD may write to an applicant and ask for further information and documents. If this occurs, the portal application is “re-opened” and access is given to upload the further documents and or information. In many cases this system works smoothly and the documents are uploaded and submitted. However, in many cases , this creates a concerning issue with the application.

If a person needs more time to submit the required documents, perhaps documents need to be requested from other state departments and so on, there is no facility to request an extension of time.

In our experience the portal request closes after a set period of time (sometimes unknown to the applicant) , with no further notice and it is no longer possible to update the application and provide the documents requested.

Very recently, the ISD have stopped operating the email address for the Citizenship unit, which has been the main channel of communication between ISD and applicants  for many years.

Applicants therefore would have no option but to send a letter by post to citizenship or to instruct a solicitor to assist them with the predicament they find themselves in.

Our office has experienced difficulties with submitting further documents, vital to a citizenship application or indeed specifically requested, via post. We have received many responses from ISD  with a direction that documents can only be submitted via the portal- This is not workable if the portal in question has not been reopened .

The move to a portal system is a big change for all parties in this process- applicants, solicitors and the  ISD.

It should be recognised that this is changing and evolving time and applicants should be assisted and facilitated in navigating this new system and there should be a recognition by ISD that this system is in its infancy.

Applicants should not be put at risk that their application might be refused, rejected or deemed ineligible when they have made best efforts to submit a comprehensive application and have tried their upmost to comply with requests via the new portal system.

No applicant should be put at risk of a rejection in these circumstances.

We also look forward to the creation of a third party portal so that solicitors have  a real way to act for their clients on their immigration  applications and are not relying on interim solutions to use portals that have be established for use by individual applicants and not solicitors.

Berkeley Solicitors through our involvement with the Irish Immigration Lawyers Association, have brought our concerns regarding the issues we are encountering with the portal to the attention of the Department and are engaging with the Department towards seeking to improve the system

RECENT HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT- REFUSAL OF TRAVEL VISA FOR EMPLOYMENT PERMIT HOLDER

RECENT COURT OF APPEAL JUDGEMENT – A QUESTION REFERED TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

The Court of Appeal has decided to refer a question to the CJEU in the case of R.S v Minister for Justice [2024] IECA 151, delivered on 21st June 2024.

The question relates to whether the Minister can make a decision/finding pursuant to the 2015 Regulations in relation to marriage of convenience/ fraud after the individual has become an Irish citizen through naturalisation.

The facts of this case surrounded an applicant who obtained an EU Fam residence card based on his marriage to an EU national in 2010 and he later naturalised as an Irish citizen. The applicant later separated and divorced from his EU National spouse.

In 2019, a third-party non-EEA national made an application for a residence permission on the basis that she was the mother an Irish citizen child, to whom the applicant was the father.

This resulted in the Residence Division contacting the EUTR Investigation unit who in turn opened an investigation into the applicant’s marriage to his ex-wife in 2010.

In December 2019 the Minister sent a letter to the applicant proposing to “revoke” his residence card, even in circumstances where at that time he was an Irish citizen.

In February 2020 the Minister revoked the residence card previously held by the applicant on the basis that he had submitted misleading documents and also on the basis that his marriage was one of convenience.

The Applicant reviewed this decision and in September 2020 the decision was upheld on review.  A further review was sought by the applicant, and this was refused.

Correspondence between the applicant’s solicitor and the Respondent ultimately led to the above decisions being withdrawn and replaced with a new decision of February 2022. As the Court noted:

The wording of new decision of 1st February 2022 was different and, significantly, did not purport to “revoke” anything

In the decision of February 2022, the Minister held that the applicant had submitted false and misleading documents and that his marriage was one of convenience. The decision stated in material part:

This marriage was never genuine, and any entitlement or status conferred under the Directive from your marriage to the Union citizen concerned are deemed withdrawn from the outset.”

The High Court found the decision of the Minister to be lawful in that it did not proport to revoke or cancel anything, the fact that the applicant had acquired Irish citizenship did not make him immune to Ministerial enquiries into a grant of permission to him in the past.

The Court of Appeal held there are two key questions in this case:

  • Does the Directive apply to an Irish citizen after he has ceased to be a beneficiary of it by reason of acquiring citizenship?
  • Does the Minister have a “free-standing” power under the Regulations to make certain factual determinations at a time and in a context where there is no possibility of linking the determination to any decision to “revoke, refuse to make or refuse to grant” any right, entitlement or status in accordance with the Regulations?

The Court went on to consider the relevant Case law including Lounes v Secretary of State for the Home Department – In which it was held that once the applicant obtained British citizenship, as she was living in the UK, she was no longer a beneficiary of the Directive as she was no longer outside her member state.

The Court also compared the arguments in the present case to the judgment of Chenchooliah v Minister for Justice and Equality (Case C-488/21), 10th September 2019, where the Directive was still held to apply to the applicant even though it was clear she was no longer a beneficiary of same.

The Minister contends that the Regulations should be read as entitling the Minister to make a determination about a past state of affairs and also having regard to the context to the Regulations, implementing a Directive in which the prevention and detection of fraud and abuse of EU residence rights is an important component

The Court ultimately determined that a question should be referred to the CJEU:

Whether Directive 2004/38/EC applies to a person who previously obtained the benefit of derived residence in a Member State by virtue of being a spouse of an EU national exercising Treaty rights but who has more recently become a citizen in the host State and is no longer the beneficiary of any benefit under the Directive, solely for the purpose of investigating and (if appropriate) making a determination or reaching a conclusion that he engaged in a fraud or abuse of rights and/or a marriage of convenience in the past in order to obtain a benefit under the Directive?

The full judgements in this case can be accessed below.

https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/7bbff9a4-5a97-40a6-a3bb-fe710e9048d4/2024_IECA_151.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

RECENT SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT REGARDING THE BEST INTERESTS OF CHILDREN IN THE CONTEXT OF DEPORTATION DECISIONS

RECENT SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT REGARDING THE BEST INTERESTS OF CHILDREN IN THE CONTEXT OF DEPORTATION DECISIONS

The Supreme Court delivered a judgement in the case of A.Z, M.Z and C.Z (a minor) v Minister for Justice and Equality [2024] IESC 35 on 25th July 2024.

The facts of this case surrounded the deportation order of a man who is the father of an Irish citizen child, and is also married to an Irish national. A challenge was brought by the family against the decision of the Minister not to revoke the father’s deportation order. Judge Phelan found in the applicants’ favour in the High Court and the matter was appealed by the Minister for Justice.

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court.

Several issues arose in the case, one being whether the Minister’s assessment of the father’s immigration application was in line with Article 42A of the Irish Constitution.

Article 42A was inserted into the Constitution in 2015.

Article 42A.1 states as follows:

  1. The State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as practicable, by its laws protect and vindicate those rights.

 

Sections 2,3 and 4 of the Article are specific provisions as they relate to specific types of proceedings including adoption, custody and access.

Article 42A.1 is a provision of much wider application.

It can be argued that Article 42A.1 recognises and affirms the already pre-existing constitutional rights of children.

Whilst Article 42A.4 is a very specific provision requiring the Minister to legislate for specific types of proceedings, we would say that Article 42A.1 has general application.

Interestingly, in this case, the Minister’s decision in respect of the man’s immigration application contained no reference to Article 42A. In the proceedings, the Minister contended that the Minister had complied with her Constitutional obligations despite no specific reference to the Article being made in the decision.

The Court did not agree with this argument and held that Judge Phelan in the High Court was correct to find that she could not be satisfied, based on careful consideration of the decision, that the rights of the child where properly identified and assessed.

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of Judge Phelan which found that following the insertion of Article 42A into the Constitution “effective State protection for the rights of the child now required a greater focus on the child as an individual, separate from the family unit as a whole and not subordinate as part of the family unit. She held that the Supreme Court had found that Article 42A results in some recalibration of the protections which had already been available to children under the other provisions of the Constitution, not least Articles 40, 41 and 42…”

By virtue of Article 42A.1 the Minister is required to identify and assess the individual rights of the child, separate and distinct from the rights of a family as a whole.

It appears to us that the Supreme Court has also held that in the context of deportation decisions, resulting in indefinite separation between a parent and child, the Minister is obliged to consider the best interests of the child as a primary consideration, with each case being decided on its own individual merits. Whilst the Minister must consider the best interests of the child as a primary consideration, there are many considerations the Minister is entitled to have regard to and the requirement that the best interests of the child be a “paramount” consideration is confined to the specific provisions in Article 42A.4.

The full judgements in this case can be accessed below.

https://courts.ie/acc/alfresco/5e689789-56c6-481a-b63b-b74248a1d14b/2024_IESC_35_(Woulfe%20J).pdf/pdf#view=fitH

https://courts.ie/acc/alfresco/0fb290b4-95f9-4e60-b296-8f18398ec7ac/2024_IESC_35_(Collins%20J)_Unapproved.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

CLIENTS OF BERKELEY SOLICITORS GRANTED LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT

CLIENTS OF BERKELEY SOLICITORS GRANTED LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT

Clients of Berkeley Solicitors have received a positive determination granting leave to appeal to the Supreme Court to challenge the Court of Appeal decision FSH and Others v Minister for Justice [2024] IECA 44.

The case concerns a Somali woman residing in Ireland by way of family reunification under S.18(4) of the Refugee Act 1996.

The applicant subsequently applied for her minor children to join her in the State pursuant to the Policy Document on Non-EEA Family Reunification, and in particular paragraph 1.12 which states as follows:

“While this document sets down guidelines for the processing of cases, it is intended that decision makers will retain the discretion to grant family reunification in cases that on the face of it do not appear to meet the requirements of the policy. This is to allow the system to deal with those rare cases that present an exceptional set of circumstances, normally humanitarian, that would suggest that the appropriate and proportionate decision should be positive.”

The visa applications were refused.

The applicant subsequently challenged the decision to refuse her application by way of Judicial Review proceedings in the High Court. The Court quashed the Minister’s decision to refuse the visa applications for the four minor applicants.

This judgement was subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal, and the judgement of the High Court was overturned.

The applicant applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court for an order quashing the order of the Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court found that the case does raise matters of general public importance and granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found as follows:

“The Court is of the opinion that the proposed appeal does raise matters of general public importance relating to the operation of the Minister’s policy on Non-EEA Family Reunification, and in particular, the precise nature of the exceptional circumstances test, how that test is to be applied and the standard of review to be applied when decisions made by the Minister pursuant to the policy are challenged by way of judicial review. These issues may arise in a number of other cases, and it is in the public interest to obtain further clarity, particularly given the conflicting approaches in the High Court and the Court below.”

We are grateful the appeal has been accepted and that a Supreme Court judgement will soon bring clarity to the exceptional circumstances test.

UPCOMING CITIZENSHIP CEREMONY

UPDATE ON UKRAINIAN NATIONALS TRAVELLING TO IRELAND

The Department of Justice recently announced that from 5th June 2024, temporary measures which allowed Ukrainian nationals to travel to Ireland without a valid biometric passport ceased to be in effect. In accordance with Section 4 of the Immigration Act 2004, all third country nationals, including Ukrainians, must possess a valid biometric passport.

Ireland temporarily suspended the requirement for a biometric passport for Ukrainian nationals in 2022 as part of a wide-ranging emergency response to the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Under this suspension, Ukrainian nationals seeking to enter the State could rely upon alternative documentation as proof of their nationality including expired biometric passports or internal passports.

This temporary suspension supported a swift response to the crisis and ensured that those who could not access or renew their travel documents could still flee to safety. However, as the situation has evolved since the outbreak of the war, the Department of Justice is seeking to move to a more sustainable response.

This announcement does not impact the temporary protection status of Ukrainian nationals already in Ireland if they do not have a valid biometric passport. However, it is important for Ukrainian nationals to be aware of this requirement if making any plans to temporarily leave the country as they will require a valid biometric passport to re-enter Ireland.

The full announcement can be found here:

Important Information for Ukrainian nationals – Immigration Service Delivery (irishimmigration.ie)

This blog article has been prepared on the basis of current immigration law and policy, which is subject to change. Please keep an eye on our blog and Facebook page where articles relating to updates and changes in immigration law and policy are regularly posted.

 

MINISTER FOR JUSTICE ANNOUNCES NEW VISA REQUIREMENTS FOR NATIONALS OF DOMINICA, HONDURAS AND VANUATU, AND VISA WAIVERS FOR CERTAIN DIPLOMATIC PASSPORT HOLDERS

On the 4th of March 2024, the Minister for Justice Helen McEntee announced that, effective from 7th March 2024, nationals of Dominica, Honduras and Vanuatu will now be required to obtain a visa before travelling to Ireland.

A transit visa will also be required for nationals of these countries if they are travelling through Ireland on the way to another destination.

The Minister stated that this decision was made to bring Ireland into closer alignment with the visa regime in the UK and Schengen area.

Transitional arrangements will be put in place for nationals of the affected countries who have existing arrangements to travel to the State in the weeks after the new visa requirements come into effect. For affected people who have made plans to travel to Ireland, and can show evidence of booking and paying for that travel, ISD will try to accommodate emergency travel for customers, in the following circumstances:

‘1. A critical medical case involving a family member being seriously ill or undergoing medical treatment.

  1. Visiting a significant family event – a birth, wedding or funeral.
  2. Taking up a place obtained in a third-level institution on an undergraduate or post graduate degree course.
  3. Taking up employment and holding an Employment Permit for Ireland.
  4. Travelling for business.’

Those attempting to be accommodated for emergency travel in any of the above circumstances must provide suitable evidence of same to ISD.

ISD has announced that if a person believes they fall into any of the above categories, and your scheduled arrival is on or before 7th April 2024, to email [email protected] with the subject line “Visa Imposition – Emergency Travel Required.”

This comes after the announcements that Convention Travel Document holders would now be visa required in July 2022, and that Bolivian nationals would be visa required in September 2023.

Ms McEntee also announced that the visa requirement for diplomatic passport holders of Indonesia, Qatar, Kuwait, Montenegro, Kuwait, Türkiye, Colombia, Peru and Georgia has now been lifted.

The requirement for a visa has also been listed for those accompanying a Minister of the Government of the above referenced countries on an official visit to the State, provided the person has an official passport, service passport or public affairs passport. The same policy applies for Irish diplomats travelling to these countries.

The Minister for Justice announced that this move would enhance the close ties in the political, economic and cultural spheres and continue to develop a close relationship with those countries.

The Minister for Justice stated that the Irish visa requirements are kept under constant review, having regard to the need to ensure that effective immigration controls are in place, whilst also facilitating those who wish to travel to Ireland for the purposes of a visit, to work, to study or to join family members.

The full notice can be found here.

This blog article has been prepared on the basis of current immigration law and policy, which is subject to change. Please keep an eye on our blog and Facebook page where articles relating to updates and changes in immigration law and policy are regularly posted.

IMMIGRATION TO IRELAND HITS 17-YEAR HIGH ACCORDING TO DATA RELEASED BY THE CENTRAL STATISTICS OFFICE

IMMIGRATION SERVICE DELIVERY ANNOUNCE INITIATIVE TO FACILITATE CUSTOMER TRAVELLING AT CHRISTMAS

The Minister for Justice recently published a notice on their website to facilitate customers who may wish to travel over the Christmas and New Year period.

The Travel Confirmation Notice states that Non-EU/EEA residents who have submitted an application to renew their permission in advance of its expiry, may use their current recently expired IRP card to travel between 6th December 2023 and 31st January 2024.

The notice has been introduced in consideration of the current backlog in processing renewals.

 

The notice only applies to persons who have submitted an application to renew their permission, prior to its expiry. The entitlement will not apply to persons who submitted an application for renewal after its expiry.

To avail if this notice, persons should have the following on hand for their travels during this period:

 

 

The ISD state that they have advised all airlines and foreign missions of the Irish initiative in place of this note, however it cannot force them to comply.

From the 31st of January 2024 onwards, a valid in date IRP card and/or appropriate visa will be required where non-nationals intend to re-enter the State.

 

For further details of the initiative please see the below link:

https://www.irishimmigration.ie/immigration-service-delivery-isd-announces-initiative-to-facilitate-customers-travelling-at-christmas/

 

For frequently asked questions of the notice, please see the below link:

https://www.irishimmigration.ie/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/ISD-Website-Travel-Notice-FAQs-2023-1.pdf

 

This blog article has been prepared on the basis of current immigration law and policy, which is subject to change. Please keep an eye on our blog and Facebook page where articles relating to updates and changes in immigration law and policy are regularly posted.

 

EMPLOYMENT PERMITS ACT 2024 SIGNED INTO LAW

RECENT REFUSALS OF EMPLOYMENT PERMIT VISAS

Late last year, Ms Justice Bolger of the High Court delivered a judgement in the case of S v Minister for Justice [2022] IEHC 578, which we discuss in detail in our blog post available here: https://berkeleysolicitors.ie/recent-high-court-judgement-refusal-of-travel-visa-for-employment-permit-holder/

 

The case concerned an Indian citizen who was granted a work permit to take up a position as a tandoori chef. The Applicant then applied for a visa to enable him enter Ireland to take up this employment position, but his visa application was refused. The Applicant appealed against this refusal; his appeal was also unsuccessful. The Applicant initiated Judicial Review proceedings in the High Court, seeking an order of certiorari to quash the decision. Ms Justice Bolger found for the applicant and granted the order quashing the decision.

 

We noted in our blog post that this case raises the conflict that can arise when a person has been granted an employment permit and requires an employment visa to enter the State.

 

The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment have responsibility for the issuance of employment permits. When a person who has been granted an employment permit is a national of a country that requires an entry visa to enter Ireland, their application to enter Ireland for the purpose of employment is subjected to a review by the Minister for Justice in their visa application.

 

The Minister in respect of the Applicant in the S case had found in the refusal decision that the Applicant had not provided sufficient evidence that they had the appropriate skills, knowledge, or experience for the employment position in Ireland. The High Court found that a work permit does not constitute prima facie evidence that the Applicant has the skills and experience required for the proposed employment. However, the Court found that it also cannot simply be ignored.

 

The Minister for Justice does not limit her assessment of a visa application to immigration matters only and will often undertake an examination of the Applicant’s suitability for the employment position they have been issued an employment permit for. We are now seeing a series of visa refusals which rely on the S case to allow the Visa Officer to re-assess the Applicant’s suitability for the prospective employment. Some refusals purport to state, in the case of roles such as horticultural workers, meat processing operatives, dairy farm assistants, and healthcare assistants, as such roles require no or few qualifications or experience in circumstances where the employer will provide training, that the Visa Officer is entitled, “in the absence of such safeguards” to “thoroughly assess” an applicant’s suitability to perform their duties. We believe that many of these decisions may unlawfully ignore the employer’s duty to provide training in respect of these roles, and that Visa Office may be inferring an additional requirement at visa processing stage to show qualifications and experience in roles where no qualifications or experience are required by the Department of Enterprise.

 

We further note that these decisions may place an undue reliance on the S case to ignore the Department of Enterprise’s role in assessing a candidate’s suitability for a proposed role. Bolger J. stated at paragraph 37 that: “I do not consider the work permit constitutes the type of prima facie evidence that is contended for by the applicant. However, neither do I accept that it can be ignored.” [emphasis added]. We note that the context to the above quote is that the applicant in that case contended that the Visa Officer “cannot look behind the grant of the permit or require an applicant for a visa to show that they are qualified to do the job for which they were granted that permit.” This would preclude the Visa Offer from having any consideration of the Applicant’s qualifications, skills, or experience in respect of the proposed role. This was not considered to be the case by the High Court. However, importantly, neither can the issuance of the work permit by the Department of Enterprise be ignored in considering an Applicant’s suitability for the proposed role. Therefore, while the issuance of a work permit cannot in and of itself constitute evidence of qualifications and experience or the offer of sufficient training, it is certainly persuasive, and cannot be ignored in the Visa Officer’s consideration of an Applicant’s suitability for the proposed role.

 

This blog article has been prepared on the basis of current immigration law and policy, which is subject to change. Please keep an eye on our blog and Facebook page where articles relating to updates and changes in immigration law and policy are regularly posted.