The High Court has postponed a decision on an Egyptian man’s bid to challenge the refusal of international protection after identifying a possible issue with how the risk of military trial, detention and reported torture in Egypt was assessed.
O.M.M.I.A. sought leave to judicially review a June 2026 decision of the International Protection Appeals Tribunal, which upheld recommendations refusing him refugee and subsidiary protection status.
The applicant, who represented himself, claimed he was a political dissident at risk in Egypt. He said he had participated in anti-government demonstrations, that members of his family had been arrested and that Egyptian authorities regarded proceedings against him as political.
The Tribunal accepted parts of his account. These included his attendance at demonstrations, periods in hiding, his departure from Egyptian military service and his creation and use of false passports. It also accepted that he would likely face arrest and prosecution if returned.
However, it rejected the core claim that he faced persecution because of political opinion or an association with the Muslim Brotherhood. It considered his likely difficulties to arise instead from military and passport-related offences.
Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan found that most of the proposed judicial review grounds did not appear to meet the substantial-grounds threshold. The Tribunal had given detailed reasons for its credibility findings and had considered the applicant’s political claims, family circumstances and country information.
A separate concern remained. The Tribunal had accepted country material indicating that an Egyptian military trial could lack basic due-process guarantees and that there were credible reports of torture and deaths in custody. Yet it concluded that the applicant had not established a real risk of persecution or serious harm.
Because the applicant had failed to provide the full country information and other important protection documents, the judge said she could not safely determine whether that conclusion was adequately supported.
Rather than refuse leave on incomplete papers, the court directed that the application be served on the Minister and the Tribunal and adjourned it for further consideration in October 2026. No final decision on leave or the underlying protection claim was made.