The High Court has rejected a Georgian man’s challenge to the International Protection Appeals Tribunal’s refusal to grant him refugee or subsidiary protection, finding no legal error in the tribunal’s assessment of his claim. The court refused the relief he sought and proposed a further hearing on costs and final orders for 6 October 2023.
The judicial review concerned an IPAT decision dated 17 November 2021. The applicant had claimed that he feared harm from a man identified in the judgment as Mr DL if returned to Georgia, and that Georgian authorities would not protect him.
The tribunal accepted much of the applicant’s account, including that he had been convicted as an accessory to murders committed by his cousin, that Mr DL later killed the cousin and burned the applicant’s parents’ house, and that Mr DL had threatened him. It found a reasonable chance that the applicant would face persecution from Mr DL and substantial grounds for believing he faced a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. It nevertheless refused protection, concluding that adequate state protection would be available in Georgia.
The applicant argued that a finding of risk should itself lead to subsidiary protection. Justice Niamh Hyland rejected that argument, explaining that risk and the availability of state protection are distinct elements in deciding eligibility. She also rejected arguments that the tribunal had misused Georgia’s designation as a safe country of origin or applied the wrong standard of proof to past events.
A central dispute concerned the applicant’s account that Georgian officials told him in 2019 to leave the country within about two weeks, warning that otherwise he would be framed on drug charges. The tribunal had found this account implausible, citing its inconsistency with other parts of his account about police investigations and prosecutions, as well as the country information before it. The High Court found the tribunal had considered the relevant evidence and explained its reasoning. It also held that the statutory conditions for applying the benefit of the doubt to unsupported statements were not met because the tribunal had found this account implausible.
The court further rejected the claim that the tribunal failed to consider the applicant’s individual circumstances when assessing state protection. It said the tribunal had considered the history of crimes, threats and police responses described in the case. The High Court stressed that its role was to review the legality of the tribunal’s decision, not to substitute its own assessment.
Justice Hyland delivered judgment on 25 September 2023. She rejected the challenge and refused the requested order quashing the tribunal’s decision. The judgment proposed 6 October for a hearing on costs and final orders; it did not determine those matters in the conclusion reproduced here.