An Indian national with a permit to work in an Irish restaurant has won his High Court challenge to a judgment that denied his visa application because he could not demonstrate sufficient skills in tandoori chicken cooking.
Ms. Justice Marguerite Bolger ruled that the Minister of Justice’s decision was “legally faulty” for a number of reasons, including that it incorrectly stated the man was unable to provide basic recipes for dishes he would be needed to make in Ireland.
The Judge stated that both the man and his potential employer in Ireland had indicated that he would be needed to make Indian bread but not chicken dishes.
In June 2020, the Minister for Business, Enterprise, and Employment granted the man a work visa for a position as a tandoori cook in an Indian restaurant in west Ireland.
The man then applied to the Department of Justice for a long-term visa. During a telephonic interview, he was asked what kind of cuisine he would be making in Ireland, to which he replied, “Indian breads.”
When asked if he cooked other foods, such as chicken tikka, he stated that this was not part of his job. However, he claimed that he just had a basic understanding of this sort of cuisine.
In September 2020, the Minister denied his application, stating that he had not supplied sufficient proof that he has the necessary skills, expertise, or experience for the job in Ireland. Furthermore, she claimed that the employer had not presented adequate proof that they recruited talented applicants from Ireland before hiring the man.
He appealed this decision, and the appeals officer found he was unable to provide “basic details for basic recipes” he claimed to have cooked and would be required to cook at the restaurant in Ireland.
Ms. Justice Bolger noted in her decision on his High Court appeal that the man had previously worked as a tandoori chef and that his prospective employer wanted him to prepare tandoori breads, curries, and sauces.
The judge said that she preferred the applicant’s evidence above the Minister’s testimony as to “what is or is not a curry.”
She claimed that the Minister’s decision had several legal faults, including a failure to justify the conclusions that the individual would not follow his visa requirements or that he had not presented adequate proof that he possessed the necessary skills, knowledge, or experience for the job.
The Judge dismissed the appeal officer’s ruling and remitted the case to another officer for reconsideration.