The applicant, MZ, a Georgian national applied for international protection in Ireland on the grounds that if he returned to Georgia, he would face persecution and/or serious harm. 

The International Protection Office rejected the application for international protection as it did not deem the applicant to be eligible for protection. The applicant filed an appeal before the International Protection Appeals Tribunal, which also concluded that the applicant should not be granted international protection. The Tribunal concluded that the applicants’ statements were coherent and consistent, and it accepted the details of his cousin's murder, his parents' house being burned and the threats he had received. However, the Tribunal rendered an improbable decision on the allegation that he was told by the head of the local government and the Georgian police that they would not protect him and that they would convict him for drug offences if he did not leave Georgia within a given timeframe. 

The Tribunal found that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution and if he was returned to Georgia, he faced a genuine risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment at the hands of criminals who had previously attacked and threatened him. However, the Tribunal concluded that there was available state protection in Georgia. The court referenced country of origin information that depicted a functional Georgian police force in drawing its conclusion. The court also cited a Human Rights Watch report that found no evidence of police misconduct.

The Tribunal further noted that Georgia is deemed a safe country of origin by Ireland under the International Protection Act. As a result, the Tribunal found that, should the applicant be returned to Georgia, sufficient state protection would be provided by the Georgian authorities to protect him from persecution. 

The applicant appealed the decision to the High Court. The High Court rejected the appeal and was satisfied that the Tribunal had given the plausibility issue considerable thought, had taken into consideration all pertinent information, and had arrived at a logical conclusion. The High Court noted that the claims made by the applicant were deemed implausible by the Tribunal because they contradicted both the general and particular information that was at hand. The applicant further failed to point out any legal errors in the Tribunal's decision that the applicant was entitled to state protection in Georgia, nor did he provide evidence that the High Court may have used to infer that the Tribunal erred in reaching its decision. The High Court thus denied the appeal on these grounds.