T.A. v The International Protection Office & Ors (Approved) [2023] IEHC 390 (07 July 2023)

T.A. v The International Protection Office & Ors (Approved) [2023] IEHC 390 (07 July 2023)

The IPO did not err in law by separately considering well-founded fear/real risk and State protection as distinct elements within the statutory definition. The approach taken was logical, reasoned, and consistent with the International Protection Act 2015, the Qualification Directive, and relevant case law. The applicant failed to demonstrate irrationality or a failure to take relevant considerations into account. Judicial review is not appropriate as the statutory appeal to IPAT is available and capable of remedying any alleged injustice.

Citation
[2023] IEHC 390
Parties
Applicant: T. A.; First Named Respondent: The International Protection Office; Second Named Respondent: The International Protection Appeals Tribunal; Third Named Respondent: The Minister for Justice and Equality; Fourth Named Respondent: Ireland and the Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
07 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
International Protection, Refugee Status, Subsidiary Protection, Judicial Review, State Protection, Qualification Directive
Immigration Law Administrative Law EU Law International Protection Refugee Status Subsidiary Protection Judicial Review State Protection +1 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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

T. A.

Applicant

The International Protection Office

First Named Respondent

The International Protection Appeals Tribunal

Second Named Respondent

The Minister for Justice and Equality

Third Named Respondent

Ireland and the Attorney General

Fourth Named Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the International Protection Office erred in law in its assessment of well-founded fear of persecution and real risk of serious harm under the International Protection Act 2015 and Qualification Directive
  2. 2 Whether the IPO failed to properly consider the availability and adequacy of State protection as a distinct element in the refugee/subsidiary protection determination
  3. 3 Whether the IPO's findings were irrational or failed to take relevant considerations into account

Ratio Decidendi

The IPO did not err in law by separately considering well-founded fear/real risk and State protection as distinct elements within the statutory definition. The approach taken was logical, reasoned, and consistent with the International Protection Act 2015, the Qualification Directive, and relevant case law. The applicant failed to demonstrate irrationality or a failure to take relevant considerations into account. Judicial review is not appropriate as the statutory appeal to IPAT is available and capable of remedying any alleged injustice.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to seek judicial review is discharged
  • Applicant must proceed by way of appeal to the International Protection Appeals Tribunal