The High Court has quashed two decisions by the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT) after finding that it did not address the substance of a Georgian applicant’s arguments for an oral hearing in his protection appeal.
Mr Justice Cian Ferriter ruled that IPAT must reconsider whether the appeal should be heard orally. The court also quashed IPAT’s decision affirming the refusal of refugee and subsidiary protection status. It did not decide the applicant’s separate challenges to the merits of that protection decision.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as SK, arrived in Ireland in July 2019 and sought international protection. He alleged that he feared persecution in Georgia because he was LGBT, including violence connected to a relationship with another man. The International Protection Office recommended refusing both forms of protection in February 2020. Its report also classified Georgia as a safe country of origin, bringing the appeal under procedures that generally provide for a decision on the papers unless IPAT considers an oral hearing to be in the interests of justice.
The applicant requested an oral hearing. After IPAT initially refused, his solicitors submitted detailed written arguments on 5 August 2020. They said, among other things, that the credibility assessment of his account of his sexuality required sensitive consideration and that the country information and his circumstances supported hearing oral evidence. IPAT refused the request again on 17 August, saying credibility and eligibility could be assessed through written submissions. It later affirmed the protection refusal on 9 September.
The High Court found that the 17 August decision did not engage with the particular arguments in the applicant’s submissions. It relied on general authorities about papers-only appeals and credibility, but did not address the case made for an oral hearing in the circumstances of this claim, including the cited UNHCR guidance and country-of-origin information.
Justice Ferriter said that, where an applicant’s account of events that could have occurred has been rejected because the applicant was disbelieved, the interests of justice may favour an oral appeal. In sexual orientation or gender identity cases, he said IPAT should normally consider whether the credibility dispute concerns the truth of the applicant’s account, whether that account is prima facie coherent and plausible, whether it conflicts with relevant information, and whether oral evidence would resolve the questions most justly.
The court ordered certiorari quashing the 17 August refusal and remitted the oral-hearing question to IPAT for fresh determination. Because that refusal was unlawful, the court said the 9 September substantive decision must also fall. It expressed no view on the applicant’s separate challenges to that decision, leaving those issues undecided.