Clarifying the “Substantial Grounds” Threshold and Procedural Fairness in Judicial Review of International Protection Decisions

Introduction

In G.L. v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal & Anor ([2025] IEHC 185), the High Court of Ireland was asked to review an IPAT decision refusing refugee status and subsidiary protection to a Georgian national. The applicant, G.L., alleged extended psychological abuse and threats from family members after a 2017 car crash which killed his cousin. Having exhausted the IPAO process, he sought leave to judicially review the IPAT’s refusal, raising procedural complaints about the absence of an oral hearing, the tribunal’s treatment of a medico-legal report, credibility findings, and the consideration of country-of-origin information (COI).

Summary of the Judgment

Ms. Justice Phelan refused leave for judicial review, concluding that the applicant did not meet the high “substantial grounds” threshold imposed by the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000. Key findings included:

No arguable breach of fair procedures in declining an oral hearing, since no specific new evidence or contested fact was identified.
No legal error in the tribunal’s treatment of the medico‐legal report, which did not correlate the applicant’s mental health with persecutory conduct.
Credibility issues—vagueness, inconsistencies between written questionnaire and oral evidence—were properly explored during the s.35 interview and fairly assessed on appeal.
COI was general, not tied to the applicant’s particular circumstances, and thus its limited reference did not constitute a reviewable error.

Ultimately, the Court held that the grounds advanced were “trivial and tenuous” rather than “reasonable, arguable, and weighty,” and refused leave.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

McNamara v. An Bord Pleanála [1995] 2 ILRM 125: Defined “substantial” in judicial review leave as “reasonable, arguable, weighty.”
In Re Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Bill 1999 [2000] 2 IR 360: Confirmed the high threshold under s.5 of the 2000 Act for leave to challenge immigration decisions.
A.S. v. IPAT [2023] IEHC 53: Discussed the form and probative value of medico-legal reports in protection claims under the Istanbul Protocol.

These authorities shaped the Court’s approach to the leave threshold, procedural fairness in appeals, and the evidentiary weight accorded to expert medical evidence.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolded in several stages:

Substantial Grounds Threshold: The Court reiterated that leave is only granted where grounds are “arguable” and not “trivial or tenuous.” The applicant’s contentions failed this test.
Oral Hearing: The IPAT’s refusal to convene an oral hearing was upheld because the Notice of Appeal did not identify any new facts or evidence that required viva voce examination. Generic requests do not engage s.43(b) of the 2015 Act.
Medico-Legal Report: Although the tribunal accepted the existence of PTSD, the report lacked any opinion linking symptoms to ill-treatment by family members. Without such correlation, it carried no decisive weight on the persecution claim.
Credibility Assessment: Inconsistencies between the written questionnaire and oral testimony were flagged during the s.35 interview. Those findings were properly carried into the appeal decision.
Country-of-Origin Information: COI was general and did not address the applicant’s individual circumstances. No duty arose to analyze COI beyond its limited relevance.

Impact

This ruling clarifies several points for future international protection litigation:

Requests for oral hearings must identify specific contested facts or new evidence to warrant viva voce examination.
Medico-legal reports must explicitly link diagnoses to alleged persecution to carry probative value.
The “substantial grounds” threshold for leave remains rigorous; trivial or generic complaints will not survive.
Tribunals and courts may defer to well-documented credibility findings made at interview if procedural fairness is observed.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Substantial Grounds Test: A leave application must be more than a mere disagreement; it must raise an arguable point of law or procedure that is weighty and not fanciful.
Safe Country of Origin Rebuttable Presumption: Georgia’s designation means applicants must show specific risks overcoming the default assumption of safety.
Medico-Legal Report: An expert document assessing trauma must connect symptoms to unlawful treatment to support a protection claim.
Oral (Viva Voce) Hearing: A live hearing before IPAT that is only required if new factual matters or fresh evidence cannot be justly decided on paper.

Conclusion

G.L. v IPAT underscores the exacting nature of the judicial-review leave stage in international protection cases. By affirming the “substantial grounds” standard and elucidating procedural requirements for oral hearings, medical evidence, and COI analysis, this judgment strengthens the jurisprudential framework governing fair procedures in protection appeals. Legal practitioners must ensure that challenges are specific, supported by directly relevant evidence, and rise to a genuinely arguable level if they are to survive the leave stage.