IM v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal & Ors (Approved) [2020] IEHC 615 (25 November 2020)

IM v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal & Ors (Approved) [2020] IEHC 615 (25 November 2020)

Applicant failed to establish an arguable case that ss.33 and 72 of the Act of 2015 are ultra vires or incompatible with EU law, or that the designation of Georgia as a safe country of origin was unlawful. However, substantial grounds were established regarding the First Respondent’s refusal of protection status, warranting leave for judicial review on those grounds.

Citation
[2020] IEHC 615
Parties
Applicant: IM; First Respondent: The International Protection Appeals Tribunal; Second Respondent: The Minister for Justice and Equality; Third Respondent: Ireland; Fourth Respondent: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
25 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Leave Application
Outcome
Leave granted in part; leave refused in part
Legal Topics
International Protection, Safe Country of Origin, Refugee Status, Subsidiary Protection, Procedures Directive, Ultra Vires, Compatibility With EU Law
Immigration Administrative Law European Union Law International Protection Safe Country of Origin Refugee Status Subsidiary Protection Procedures Directive +2 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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

IM

Applicant

The International Protection Appeals Tribunal

First Respondent

The Minister for Justice and Equality

Second Respondent

Ireland

Third Respondent

The Attorney General

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Leave Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ss.33 and 72 of the International Protection Act 2015 are ultra vires or incompatible with Ireland’s obligations under Council Directive 2005/85/EU
  2. 2 Whether the designation of Georgia as a safe country of origin was lawful under s.72 of the Act of 2015
  3. 3 Whether the First Respondent’s refusal of protection status was illegal, irrational, or failed to consider material evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant failed to establish an arguable case that ss.33 and 72 of the Act of 2015 are ultra vires or incompatible with EU law, or that the designation of Georgia as a safe country of origin was unlawful. However, substantial grounds were established regarding the First Respondent’s refusal of protection status, warranting leave for judicial review on those grounds.

Court Disposition

Leave granted in part; leave refused in part

Orders

  • Leave granted to apply for judicial review of the First Respondent’s decision refusing protection status
  • Leave refused for claims regarding ss.33 and 72 of the Act of 2015 and the designation of Georgia as a safe country of origin