The High Court has refused an application for leave to seek judicial review of an International Protection Appeals Tribunal decision refusing a Georgian national refugee status and subsidiary protection.
In a ruling delivered on 28 March 2025, Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan concluded that the applicant had not met the “substantial grounds” threshold required at the leave stage. The court did not conduct a full judicial review of the tribunal’s decision; it refused permission to bring one.
The applicant sought to challenge the tribunal’s February 2025 decision, which had upheld an International Protection Officer’s refusal of protection. He claimed that, after a fatal car crash in Georgia in 2017 in which his cousin died while he was driving, family members subjected him to psychological abuse and threats. The tribunal accepted that the crash occurred and that he had mental health difficulties arising from it, but did not accept that he had been threatened and psychologically oppressed by relatives over five years.
The applicant argued that the tribunal should have held an oral hearing, given proper consideration to a medico-legal report, assessed his claim fairly and addressed country of origin information about Georgia. The judge found that the hearing request did not identify specific facts the applicant needed to clarify or further evidence he could give. The tribunal’s decision not to hold a hearing was, she said, clearly reasoned and related to the circumstances of the case.
The report recorded severe post-traumatic stress disorder, suicidal ideation and vulnerability if the applicant returned to Georgia. The judge said it did not assess whether his symptoms were consistent with the alleged ill-treatment or establish a link between those symptoms and treatment by family members. She noted that the mental health effects could also have resulted from his involvement in the fatal crash.
On the remaining grounds, the judge said vagueness and lack of detail had been raised during the applicant’s earlier interview, and his appeal submissions had not elaborated on his account. The country information submitted was general, and the applicant’s representatives had not identified material that supported his particular claim or required specific treatment by the tribunal. The judge also noted that difficulty accessing mental health services had not formed part of his claim.
The court therefore refused leave to bring judicial review, finding the proposed grounds did not meet the required threshold.