The High Court has quashed a deportation order against a Georgian man after finding that the Minister for Justice’s assessment wrongly proceeded on the basis that no new information had been submitted after his international protection claim was rejected.
The applicant, identified as K. (Georgia), entered Ireland on 6 March 2026 and sought international protection three days later. He claimed that his political activities, including participation in anti-government protests and posting protest videos online, had brought him to the attention of Georgian authorities and affiliated groups.
The International Protection Office and, on appeal, the International Protection Appeals Tribunal rejected the wider claim of politically motivated threats, assault and police harassment. Six days after the tribunal decision, however, the applicant’s solicitors sent additional material to the Minister, including medical records and a video which had not previously been before either protection body.
A section 50 non-refoulement report completed on 28 May stated that the applicant had provided “no new information” beyond material already considered by the IPO and IPAT. A deportation order was made the same day.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons held that this was a material factual error. The medical records confirmed that the applicant had been treated for a spontaneous pneumothorax in December 2024, while the video was said to show him injured after a political protest. The court did not decide whether either item ultimately supported his protection claim.
Instead, the ruling settles a narrower point: once new and potentially relevant material was submitted, the Minister had to consider whether it affected the earlier protection findings before relying on them for the non-refoulement decision.
The court found there was a reasonable prospect that proper consideration of the material might have affected the outcome. Because a lawful section 50 opinion is required before a deportation order can be made, the order was quashed.
The case will now return for reconsideration by a different decision-maker. The court expressly left open what weight, if any, should ultimately be given to the medical records and video.