De Novo Review and Oral-Hearing Discretion in International Protection Appeals

Introduction

M.M.S. v International Protection Appeals Tribunal & Ors [2025] IEHC 294 is a High Court judgment of Mr Justice Barry O’Donnell delivered on 23 May 2025. The applicant, a South African widow, sought refugee status and subsidiary protection in Ireland after claiming threats, harassment and property‐seizure by her late husband’s family. The International Protection Officer (IPO) refused her applications, and on appeal the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT) confirmed that refusal. The applicant then applied for judicial review, challenging both IPAT’s decision and its refusal to hold an oral hearing under section 43(b) of the International Protection Act 2015 (“the 2015 Act”). She argued (i) that IPAT unlawfully reversed factual findings made by the IPO, (ii) that IPAT failed to engage properly with country‐of‐origin information, (iii) that procedural fairness required an oral hearing, and (iv) that IPAT’s reasoning on “persecution” and “serious harm” was irrational.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court refused the applicant’s challenge in its entirety. Key findings:

• IPAT hearings are de novo; positive findings by the IPO can lawfully be revisited and reversed.
• IPAT expressly stated it had considered all materials; following Rana & Ali v Minister for Justice [2024] IESC 46, that suffices absent evidence to the contrary.
• Section 43(b) confers a discretion to refuse oral hearings where the interests of justice do not require one. No classic credibility dispute or new factual issue arose here to trigger an oral hearing.
• IPAT’s conclusions that the applicant’s past and threatened mistreatment did not reach the statutory threshold of “persecution” (s. 7) or “serious harm” for subsidiary protection were within the range of rational outcomes on the undisputed facts.

Judicial review was refused; the applicant’s fair‐procedures and rationality grounds failed. Costs were provisionally awarded to the respondents.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

• G.K. v Minister for Justice [2002] 2 IR 418: A decision‐maker’s statement of having considered all material is sufficient unless there is some reason to doubt it.
• M.M. v Minister for Justice [2018] IESC 10 and V.J. v Minister for Justice [2019] IESC 75: Clarified that oral hearings are not automatically required; determination depends on the nature of issues raised.
• T.B. v IPAT [2022] IEHC 275: Where credibility findings are “classic” (applicant’s personal account disbelieved), an oral hearing is likely required; IPAT must explain its reasoning on hearing requests.
• F.P. v IPAT [2022] IEHC 535: Applicants must actively prosecute appeals, including articulating why an oral hearing is needed.
• Rana & Ali v Minister for Justice [2024] IESC 46: Reinforced G.K.; decision‐maker’s statement of consideration stands unless contradicted by evidence.

2. Legal Reasoning

(a) Statutory Framework. The 2015 Act implements the Qualification Directive. For refugee status an applicant must show a well-founded fear of persecution (s. 2, s. 7–8) and inability to avail of State protection (s. 30). For subsidiary protection the applicant must face a real risk of serious harm (s. 2).

(b) Safe Country Designation. South Africa was designated a safe country of origin under s. 72. Section 33 requires an applicant to submit “serious grounds” why the designation should not apply to her particular circumstances.

(c) De Novo Appeal & Oral Hearing Discretion. Section 43(b) directs IPAT to decide appeals “without holding an oral hearing” unless it is “in the interests of justice” to do so. Where material facts are undisputed and credibility is not in classic dispute, IPAT may lawfully refuse an oral hearing.

(d) Rationality Review. On judicial review the court does not usurp IPAT’s fact-finding role but checks (i) that IPAT asked itself the right questions, (ii) that its conclusions on law and fact were open to a reasonable decision-maker, and (iii) that procedural fairness was observed.

3. Impact

This decision confirms and clarifies several points:

• De novo appeals to IPAT permit reversal of favourable IPO findings where IPAT applies the statutory test to undisputed facts.
• Section 43(b) oral-hearing discretion requires applicants themselves to identify in writing why the interests of justice demand a hearing; generic assertions of weighty issues will not suffice.
• Decision-maker statements of consideration of all materials will be accepted absent evidence to the contrary, per Rana & Ali.
• Thresholds for “persecution” (s. 7) and “serious harm” must be assessed case-by-case; property disputes and non-violent threats, even if harrowing, may not suffice.

Future appellants will need to focus on (i) raising classic credibility issues or newly emerged factual disputes to secure an oral hearing, and (ii) deploying country-of-origin information to underpin allegations of State-inability to protect.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• De novo appeal: IPAT re-hears the entire case afresh; it is not bound by IPO findings.
• Persecution (s. 7): Acts of violence or discrimination so serious they breach fundamental human rights; needs a link to a protected ground (e.g., membership of a social group).
• Serious harm: In subsidiary protection, includes death, torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, or indiscriminate violence in armed conflict.
• Safe country of origin: A state presumed to protect its citizens; an applicant must give “serious grounds” why this does not apply to her situation.
• Oral-hearing discretion (s. 43(b)): IPAT can refuse an oral hearing unless fairness demands it—e.g., where core credibility issues first arise on appeal.

Conclusion

M.M.S. v IPAT reaffirms that international-protection appeals to IPAT are full de novo hearings, that positive IPO findings may be revisited, and that IPAT’s discretion under s. 43(b) to hold or refuse an oral hearing is determined by the nature of issues raised. Procedural fairness does not require an oral hearing where facts are undisputed and credibility is not in classic dispute. This judgment will guide appellants to frame their appeals tightly—identifying new factual disputes, credibility challenges, or strong country-of-origin evidence—to secure an oral hearing and to meet the high thresholds for persecution and serious harm.