A.B., a Georgian national, applied for international protection in Ireland on 12 July 2022, submitting that he and his brother had been physically and verbally threatened over farmland ownership by a man with influence in criminal circles. He stated that the man’s brother was a politician from the Georgian Dream party and had influence within the police, which was why the applicant did not report the threats to the authorities.

On 1 February 2024, the International Protection Office (IPO) found A.B.’s account of the attacks he suffered and his subsequent hospitalisation to be vague and unsupported by documentary evidence. The IPO also noted that the applicant was unable to explain the role of his persecutor’s politician brother within the party and highlighted his failure to engage with the Georgian authorities at any stage. Ultimately, the IPO considered his claim not credible.

The applicant contested the decision before the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT). Giving him the benefit of the doubt, the IPAT found that the applicant had a well-founded fear of future persecution or risk of serious harm, notwithstanding the limited documentation supporting his claims. However, it also found that effective state protection was available to him in Georgia, deeming his assertions that the police and judicial system would not protect him to be “unrealistic”. The IPAT further concluded that the alleged persecution was not linked to any Refugee Convention ground, noting that the persecutor’s political connections, while potentially relevant to the issue of the availability of protection, were not the basis for persecution. Based on this reasoning, on 17 June 2025, the IPAT ultimately upheld the IPO’s negative decision.

On 24 June 2025, A.B. applied for review of permission to remain under Section 49(7) of the International Protection Act (IPA), arguing that he was employed full-time, was tax compliant, was engaged to be married, and had been found to have a well-founded fear of persecution in Georgia by the IPAT. On 24 July 2025, the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration (the Minister) refused to grant the applicant permission to remain in Ireland.

The applicant subsequently challenged the IPAT and the Minister’s refusals before the High Court which, although finding that only the latter challenge had been submitted within the time limit, proceeded to examine all the grounds of appeal raised.

Concerning the argument that it was irrational for the IPAT to find that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution while also finding that sufficient and effective state protection was available, the High Court cited its judgment in T.A. v IPAT (7 July 2023). In that case, the court held that although the concepts of well-founded fear of persecution and risk are intrinsically linked to the availability of state protection, they are autonomous elements that must be assessed separately. Accordingly, the court found that the IPAT’s reasoning was not irrational on this account.

With regard to the absence of a nexus between the alleged persecution and a Refugee Convention ground, the court relied on the Court of Justice of the European Union's (CJEU) judgment in case C-621/21. The CJEU established that even where there is a disconnect between acts of persecution by non-state actors and the grounds listed in Article 10(1) of the recast Qualification Directive, international protection may still arise where the absence of state protection does relate to any of these grounds. However, the High Court found that no such link existed in the present case, since the applicant’s claim did not involve any political opinion, nor was it based on any relevant personal characteristic, such as membership of a particular social group (for example, women, as recognised in the CJEU case law cited). As regards the argument that the persecutor’s political connections could affect the availability of police or judicial protection, the High Court considered it a moot point since the absence of a Refugee Convention ground had already been established.

The High Court also dismissed the procedural fairness argument relating to the IPAT’s failure to inform the applicant of its decision not to hold an oral hearing. It noted that Georgia had been designated by the authorities as a safe country of origin and that, consequently, applications could be examined under an accelerated procedure that does not provide an automatic right to an oral hearing. Furthermore, the applicant had not identified what additional information he could have provided at such a hearing beyond what was already contained in the case file and what he had stated during his interview.

By contrast, the High Court upheld the applicant’s argument concerning his request for permission to remain in Ireland under Section 49 of the IPA in connection with the right to family life under Article 8(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Referring to its previous case law, including judgment [2023] IEHC 692 of 15 December 2023, the court noted that the Minister had failed to consider the IPAT’s finding that the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution and/or risk of serious harm from a humanitarian perspective under Section 49(3) of the IPA. The court therefore granted leave to seek relief on this ground.