The High Court has quashed a decision refusing international protection to a Georgian man after finding that the International Protection Appeals Tribunal failed to adequately explain why his appeal could be decided without an oral hearing.
The applicant, identified as BB, sought refugee status and subsidiary protection after arriving in Ireland in 2022. He claimed that people in Georgia had threatened and attacked him after he refused requests to manipulate casino gaming machines and later to assist with computer hacking.
The International Protection Office rejected his application in January 2023, making adverse credibility findings and relying on Georgia's designation as a safe country of origin. BB appealed and asked for an oral hearing. His appeal form also identified his wife as a proposed witness who would, in brief terms, "confirm story and threats".
Because Georgia was designated a safe country, the statutory default was that the Tribunal could decide the accelerated appeal on the papers unless it considered an oral hearing necessary in the interests of justice.
Ms Justice Sara Phelan rejected BB's argument that the Tribunal was legally required to decide and notify him in advance whether an oral hearing would take place. She held that applicants bear responsibility for prosecuting their appeals and noted that BB's lawyers supplied no detailed follow-up submissions or witness statement during the more than six months before the decision.
However, the judge found a separate legal flaw. The Tribunal's October 2023 decision recited the law and referred generally to the consistency of BB's claims, but did not explain why those circumstances justified a papers-only determination. It also failed to engage with the proposed evidence from his wife.
The court held that even a minimally explained request for an oral hearing had to be addressed with intelligible reasons. The Tribunal decision was quashed and the appeal was remitted for fresh consideration by a different Tribunal member.
The High Court did not decide whether BB qualifies for international protection or whether an oral hearing must ultimately be held.