On 22 July 2025, the Gauteng High Court dismissed Sitrusrand Boerdery`s review of the Department of Employment and Labour`s refusal to issue a Working Conditions and Salary Benchmarking Certificate, an essential precondition for obtaining corporate visas under the Immigration Act.

Acting Judge Kekana AJ held that the Department`s decision was lawful, rational and procedurally fair. This judgment illustrates how businesses can - and must - structure their corporate visa applications to meet statutory requirements, and how legal practitioners should prepare robust review challenges when administrative authorities decline to recommend foreign-work permits.

Factual backgroundSitrusrand Boerdery, a citrus-farming company, applied in February 2023 for a Department of Employment and Labour letter of recommendation to employ 762 foreign workers for its 2023 harvest season. After advertising locally in English, the farm received only 15 applications, none suitably qualified.

Accordingly, on 10 February 2023 it applied under section 21 of the Immigration Act and regulation 20(1)(b) for the certificate, asserting a shortage of local skills.In response, the Department referred 1,244 potential candidatesâ€`identified via the national Essa system and regional recruitment drives, to Sitrusrand across four lists between 24 February and 22 March 2023. Sitrusrand`s feedback on 11 April 2023 confirmed that only 58 of 1,759 applicants met its criteria.

Nonetheless, on 12 April 2023 the Department`s Adjudication Committee rejected the application, finding that the required skills were available locally.

Grounds of review and court`s analysis
Sitrusrand challenged the refusal on three PAJA grounds:
-Failure to consider relevant factors (section 6(2)(e))
-Irrationality (section 6(2)(f)(ii))
-Procedural unfairness (section 3 of PAJA)

Ground 1 â€` Failure to consider relevant factorsSitrusrand argued the Committee did not consider its post-meeting feedback on the 1,759 candidates, which arrived on 11 April 2023, one day before the decision letter. The court, however, accepted the Department`s evidence that the chief director had reviewed all recruitment data, including Essa listings of almost 6,000 matches and the internally conducted drives. The voluminous referral lists and Sitrusrand`s own feedback were before the Committee, satisfying its duty to consider all representations.

Ground 2 â€` Rationality
Under PAJA, a decision is irrational if it lacks a logical connection to the information before the decision-maker. The court found that, facing thousands of potential applicants with verified skills listed on Essa, the Committee reasonably concluded local labour was sufficient. Sitrusrand`s inability to recruit did not negate the statistical reality of available candidates.

Ground 3 â€` Procedural fairnessSitrusrand contended it was not afforded an opportunity to make oral representations before rejection. The court held that, as the prescribed statutory process envisioned written submissions via Form 13 and supporting affidavits, no separate hearing was

required.The Committee`s decision letter set out its reasoning clearly, and Sitrusrand`s written feedback had been considered. Requiring additional consultations would impose an undue administrative burden contrary to the Immigration Regulations` streamlined procedure.

Practical implicationsFor legal practitioners-Compile a complete record: Ensure every recruitment effort, advertisements, Essa referrals, interviews and feedback, is documented and annexed to the Form 13 application. Gaps will undermine review prospects.
-Anticipate rationality challenges: Structure your founding affidavit to explain why statistical availability (eg. thousands on Essa) does not equate to practical employability, distinguishing quality from quantity.
-Clarify procedural steps: Confirm whether regulations require a hearing or rely solely on written materials. If oral representations are not mandated, focus on robust written submissions.
-Select appropriate grounds: Use PAJA`s multifaceted grounds, failure to consider, irrationality, procedural unfairness, but tailor each to the decision-maker`s statutory duties and your client`s unique context.

For corporate and HR clients
-Conduct diligent, inclusive recruitment: Advertise in multiple languages and media (newspapers, community centres, digital platforms) to demonstrate genuine attempts to source local talent.
-Recruitment efforts must be exhaustive: Superficial or narrowly targeted recruitment won`t suffice. Employers must show they`ve made a real effort to find local talent.
-Engage with departmental referrals: Promptly interview and report back on all referred candidates, showing good-faith consideration of Department-provided lists.
-Timing is crucial: Submit feedback and supplementary evidence before the Committee meeting or decision date. Late submissions or incomplete records can sink an application or review challenge or risk being disregarded.
-Plan contingencies: Recognise that refusal is possible even after extensive recruitment; develop alternative staffing or mechanisation strategies to mitigate operational disruption.
-Visa refusals are defensible: Courts will uphold refusals if departments follow lawful, rational, and fair procedures, even when employers face genuine labour shortages.
-No guaranteed hearings: The process is largely paper-based. Employers must make their case through written submissions alone.

ConclusionThe Sitrusrand Boerdery judgment confirms that administrative refusals of corporate-visa recommendations will stand when departments follow clear, rational and procedurally fair processes. Project sponsors and their legal advisers must therefore anticipate every stage of the statutory application, ensuring exhaustive recruitment records, timely feedback and targeted review grounds, to preserve their right to litigate effectively should administrative channels close. V.6131

One of the highlighted topics: Critical Skills Visa.

- Key Insight: Is your profession on the Critical Skills List? This visa is your fast track to working in South Afr...
- This matter relates to critical skills visa and its broader implications.
- Individuals are advised to seek professional guidance.

Is your profession on the Critical Skills List? This visa is your fast trac V.6139
Click here for full article

One of the applicants, Phindile Mazibuko, became a victim of identity theft in 2012 when fraudulent transactions occurred, using her personal details.

-The Pretoria High Court found that the department of home affairs had violated constitutional rights without due process.
-Only half of Lawyers for Human Rights` test group has been unblocked, while 385 000 identities remain blocked nationwide.
-LHR appeals extension, urges affected people to seek help now.

Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR) are intensifying pressure on the department of home affairs over the national ID-blocking crisis, accusing the state of acting too slowly to unblock qualifying individuals despite a landmark court ruling.

In January last year, the Pretoria High Court found that the department`s practice of blocking IDs without due process was unlawful and unconstitutional. One of the applicants, Phindile Mazibuko, a Swati citizen and South African permanent resident since 1998, fell victim to identity theft in 2012 when fraudsters used her personal details.

 V.6133
Click here for full article

The Border Management Authority (BMA) has doubled its staff at Airports in South Africa , including immigration officers.

What does this mean for travelers? V.6128
Click here for full article

The Border Management Authority (BMA) has doubled its staff at Airports in South Africa , including immigration officers.

What does this mean for travelers? V.6129
Click here for full article

A Washington state mother and her 6-year-old son have been released after spending more than three weeks in US immigration detention due to a brief trip to Canada and a small paperwork mistake, her attorney told CNN on Saturday.

Sarah Shaw, a New Zealand citizen who has lived legally in the US since she arrived in 2021, was detained at the Blaine, Washington, Customs and Border Protection checkpoint when returning home after dropping her two oldest children off at the Vancouver airport for a flight to visit their grandparents in New Zealand. Shaw, 33, chose the flight out of Vancouver because it was direct and she didn`t want her children to have to navigate a layover alone, her attorney Minda Thorward, told CNN.

 V.6130
Click here for full article

The United States could forfeit an estimated 9.4 billion dollars in visitor spending over the next three years following the introduction of a new 250 dollars `visa integrity fee,` according to industry groups, who warn the policy risks undermining tourism and costing thousands of jobs.
The United States’ decision to introduce a 250 dollars `visa integrity fee` on international visitors has triggered sharp criticism from the global tourism industry, with officials warning that the measure could deter millions of travellers and cost the U.S. economy billions.
The 250dollar `visa integrity fee,` part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed on July 4, 2025, will take effect later this year. According to immigration law firm Envoy Global, it applies to all nonimmigrant visa holders which include students, tourists, temporary workers, and business visitors particularly from African countries. V.6132
Click here for full article

The Border Management Authority (BMA) has doubled its staff at Airports in South Africa , including immigration officers.

What does this mean for travelers? V.6127
Click here for full article

1. Right to Legal Representation•You have the right to consult with a legal representative.•Contact an immigration practitioner, legal aid clinic, or attorney urgently.•Do not sign any documents without understanding them fully. 2. Section 34 of the Immigration Act•You must be brought to court with 48 hours to confirm arrest but you can remain locked up very long as courts figure out what to do with you •If you`re found to be illegally in South Africa, you may be detained for up to 30 days (extendable by a magistrate) pending deportation.•BUT this cannot happen arbitrarily. You must be informed of your rights, and Home Affairs must follow due process.- becomes a nightmare , you could lose your job , business , place to stay V.6121
Click here for full article

Driving for Bolt, Uber, Mr D, or Checkers Sixty60?If you`re undocumented, you`re risking more than just your income.The Risks if You`re Not Legal: - Vehicle impoundment - Heavy fines - Arrest & deportation - Permanent bans from working in SA V.6122
Click here for full article

Driving for Bolt, Uber, Mr D, or Checkers Sixty60?If you`re undocumented, you`re risking more than just your income.The Risks if You`re Not Legal: - Vehicle impoundment - Heavy fines - Arrest & deportation - Permanent bans from working in SA V.6123
Click here for full article