The High Court has rejected an Egyptian man's challenge to the refusal of extra time to appeal a decision denying him international protection in Ireland.
In a judgment delivered on 27 January 2026, Ms Justice Miriam O’Regan upheld a February 2025 decision of the International Protection Appeals Tribunal, which found that SMMZ had not shown the special circumstances required for a late appeal.
SMMZ applied for international protection on 29 July 2024. The International Protection Office later recommended that he receive neither refugee status nor subsidiary protection. He was notified on 8 January 2025 and told that any appeal had to be lodged within ten working days.
The judgment records that SMMZ completed the necessary appeal form on 13 January and returned it to his solicitor on 22 January. However, the appeal was not filed until 24 February.
His solicitor explained that an email from SMMZ had been missed through "oversight and error" in the office and stressed that the applicant himself was blameless.
The tribunal refused an extension, describing that explanation as inadequate, particularly given a delay of four weeks. It found that SMMZ had not established the necessary special circumstances.
In the High Court, SMMZ argued that the tribunal had not adequately explained why his solicitor's explanation was insufficient or why the four-week period mattered. He also argued that the tribunal applied the wrong legal test when it said it was prohibited from extending time unless special circumstances were shown.
Ms Justice O’Regan rejected both arguments. She held that the tribunal's reasoning was clear when read with the short explanation submitted by the solicitor and the applicable regulations. A four-week delay was more than twice the original appeal period, while the only explanation offered was office oversight.
The judge also held that describing the tribunal as prohibited from extending time accurately reflected the regulation, which states that it shall not extend the deadline unless the required conditions are satisfied.
The judicial review reliefs were refused. The respondents were presumptively entitled to their costs, subject to any further submissions.