Comparative Threshold for Country of Origin Information in Judicial Review of IPAT Decisions

Introduction

This commentary addresses the High Court of Ireland’s ruling in A.S. v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal & Ors [2025] IEHC 184, delivered by Ms. Justice Siobhán Phelan on 28 March 2025. The applicant, a South African national of white ethnicity, sought subsidiary protection or refugee status on grounds of race-based persecution. After the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT) rejected her appeal, she challenged the decision in judicial review, contending that IPAT had failed to consider up-to-date Country of Origin Information (COI). The central legal question became whether she had established “substantial grounds” to quash the decision for IPAT’s alleged reliance on outdated COI.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court refused leave to proceed. The court found:

The applicant was 35 days late in filing; an extension of time would be difficult to secure at full hearing.
The sole ground pursued was that IPAT did not use the most recent COI.
The applicant failed to identify material, up-to-date COI that would plausibly have altered IPAT’s conclusions on state protection in South Africa.
Without a concrete comparative analysis between the COI relied upon and newer COI, the claim was “trivial and tenuous” and did not meet the “reasonable” or “weighty” threshold for leave.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

McNamara v. An Bord Pleanála [1995] 2 ILRM 125 – Established that “substantial grounds” are equivalent to “reasonable,” “arguable” and must not be “trivial or tenuous.”
In Re Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Bill 1999 [2000] 2 IR 360 – Approved McNamara’s interpretation of the “substantial grounds” test.
S v Minister for Justice [2002] IESC 17, GK v Minister for Justice [2002] 2 IR 418, and GK v IPAT [2022] IEHC 204 – Articulated guiding principles for extending statutory time-limits in asylum-related judicial reviews.
European Directives – Asylum Procedures Directive (2013/32/EU) and Qualification Directive (2004/83/EC), and Ireland’s transposing regulations (S.I. No. 518/2006) imposing duties on decision-makers to gather “precise and up-to-date” COI.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning unfolded in three stages:

Delay and Extension of Time
The applicant filed 35 days late. Her explanation—a barrister-briefing error—was incomplete and inadequately explained. Although leave could not be refused on delay alone at this interlocutory stage, the court warned that convincing an extension at the full hearing would be difficult.
Substantial Grounds Test
On the single ground that IPAT used outdated COI, the applicant needed to show arguable, weighty evidence that up-to-date COI differed materially and could have changed the outcome on police effectiveness in South Africa. The court found no such specific comparative exercise in the affidavits.
Evidential Burden on COI Challenges
The decision confirms that when challenging COI reliance, an applicant must: (a) identify which COI was used; (b) produce the newer COI; and (c) compare them to demonstrate a material discrepancy impacting the decision. Abstract assertions of “outdated” COI are insufficient.

Impact

This ruling will guide future asylum and protection judicial reviews in Ireland by:

Raising the evidential bar for COI-based challenges: applicants must present a point-by-point, comparative analysis of old and new COI.
Reinforcing procedural rigor in meeting statutory time-limits and securing extensions.
Clarifying that leave applications in immigration contexts require concrete, non-tenuous grounds even at an interlocutory stage.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Country of Origin Information (COI) – Reports and data about conditions in an applicant’s home country used to assess risk.
IPAT – The International Protection Appeals Tribunal, Ireland’s first-instance asylum appeal body.
Leave/Substantial Grounds Test – A preliminary screening in judicial review; grounds must be “reasonable,” “arguable” and not “trivial.”
“Stop the Clock” – Filing judicial review suspends (stops) the ordinary 28-day time-limit for challenging inaction or decisions.

Conclusion

The High Court’s refusal of leave in A.S. v IPAT establishes that mere assertions of outdated COI will not suffice: applicants must provide a clear, comparative evidential platform showing how newer COI differs in a manner material to their individual claims. This decision underlines the necessity of detailed preparation in asylum challenges and clarifies the rigorous standard for “substantial grounds” in judicial review of protection refusals.