B.N. (Georgia) v International Protection Appeals Tribunal and Anor (Approved) [2025] IEHC 665 (28 November 2025)

B.N. (Georgia) v International Protection Appeals Tribunal and Anor (Approved) [2025] IEHC 665 (28 November 2025)

The Tribunal's failure to engage with and determine the applicant's core legal claim regarding his status as an IDP from Abkhazia constituted a breach of statutory and EU law obligations to conduct an individual assessment and to address all relevant elements of the application. This error vitiated the decision and required it to be quashed and remitted for fresh consideration.

Citation
[2025] IEHC 665
Parties
Applicant: B. N. (Georgia); First Respondent: International Protection Appeals Tribunal; Second Respondent: Minister for Justice
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
28 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Merits After Leave Granted
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
International Protection, Refugee Status, Subsidiary Protection, Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Duty to Give Reasons, Internally Displaced Persons (idp), Extension of Time
Immigration Law Administrative Law EU Law International Protection Refugee Status Subsidiary Protection Judicial Review Procedural Fairness +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B. N. (Georgia)

Applicant

International Protection Appeals Tribunal

First Respondent

Minister for Justice

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Merits After Leave Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal erred in law and breached constitutional justice by failing to engage with the applicant's core claim regarding his status as an internally displaced person (IDP) from Abkhazia and its relevance to his entitlement to international protection.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to bring the judicial review proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal's failure to engage with and determine the applicant's core legal claim regarding his status as an IDP from Abkhazia constituted a breach of statutory and EU law obligations to conduct an individual assessment and to address all relevant elements of the application. This error vitiated the decision and required it to be quashed and remitted for fresh consideration.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Extension of time to bring judicial review granted.
  • Order of certiorari quashing the Tribunal's decision.