The High Court has refused a Georgian man’s application to halt his international protection appeal while separate judicial review proceedings remain before the court.
G.T. and his wife applied jointly for international protection in Ireland in June 2025. Their claims arose from alleged violence and threats by his wife’s former husband. The wife was later recommended for refugee status, while G.T.’s application was refused by the International Protection Office.
G.T. was granted leave in February 2026 to challenge the IPO’s decisions by judicial review. He argued that the IPO had treated the couple’s closely related cases differently without adequately considering his wife’s evidence or explaining the different outcomes.
He also lodged an appeal with the International Protection Appeals Tribunal on a precautionary basis. When the tribunal scheduled that appeal for an oral hearing on 8 May 2026, he asked the High Court to stop it pending the outcome of the judicial review.
Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan refused that application on 30 April. She found that recent Supreme Court decisions in AB and Amariei had tightened the circumstances in which judicial review should proceed before an available statutory appeal has been exhausted.
The judge also said the factual position had changed since leave was granted. G.T. had originally faced the prospect of an appeal on the papers because Georgia is designated a safe country of origin. The tribunal had since arranged an oral remote hearing, giving him the opportunity to call his wife as a witness and rely on her evidence directly.
The judge concluded that this reduced the risk that the alleged defects in the IPO process could not be corrected on appeal. She was not satisfied that G.T. had shown an arguable case for a stay, or that the balance of justice required the tribunal process to be halted.
The judicial review itself was not finally determined by this ruling. The court refused only the interlocutory application seeking to stop further steps in the appeal.