I. M. v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal and Anor (Approved) [2026] IEHC 64 (11 February 2026)

I. M. v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal and Anor (Approved) [2026] IEHC 64 (11 February 2026)

The Tribunal lawfully refused an oral hearing as the credibility findings were based on non-demeanour grounds assessable on the papers, the applicant had opportunity to address all issues, and there was no breach of fair procedures or misapplication of the law regarding documentation or the benefit of the doubt.

Citation
[2026] IEHC 64
Parties
Applicant: I. M.; First Respondent: The International Protection Appeals Tribunal; Second Respondent: The Minister for Justice
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
11 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
International Protection, Refugee Status, Subsidiary Protection, Fair Procedures, Right to Oral Hearing, Credibility Assessment
Immigration Law Administrative Law International Protection Refugee Status Subsidiary Protection Fair Procedures Right to Oral Hearing Credibility Assessment

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

I. M.

Applicant

The International Protection Appeals Tribunal

First Respondent

The Minister for Justice

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal erred in refusing an oral hearing for the applicant's international protection appeal
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal breached fair procedures by not putting adverse credibility findings to the applicant in advance
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal mischaracterised the basis of the applicant's claim

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal lawfully refused an oral hearing as the credibility findings were based on non-demeanour grounds assessable on the papers, the applicant had opportunity to address all issues, and there was no breach of fair procedures or misapplication of the law regarding documentation or the benefit of the doubt.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed