Summary of Judgment

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, a national of The State born in 1996, applied for international protection in 2022 asserting a fear of persecution on account of his bisexuality and related activities, including participation in an LGBT demonstration and membership of Company C (a political party). The Appellant completed statutory interviews and questionnaires with Agency A in 2022–2023. By letter of 10 November 2023 Agency A recommended refusal of refugee and subsidiary protection status on the basis that state protection was available. The Appellant appealed to the Appellee and sought an oral hearing; the Appellee decided without an oral hearing. The Appellee requested clarification on aspects of the claim on 13 August 2024; the Appellant provided further submissions and COI on 26 August 2024. On 27 August 2024 the Appellee issued a decision affirming Agency A's recommendation and refusing refugee and subsidiary protection. The Appellant sought judicial review; the application was heard on 20 January 2026 and the judgment delivered by Judge O'Higgins on 5 February 2026.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Appellee properly assessed the availability of state protection under section 31 of the International Protection Act 2015.
2. Whether the Appellee's finding that the section 33 presumption (safe country of origin) was rebutted was inconsistent with its finding that state protection was available.
3. Whether the Appellee irrationally relied on the Appellant's failure to report incidents to the police.
4. Whether the Appellee failed to rationally analyse and weigh conflicting country of origin information (COI).
5. Whether the Appellee failed to consider whether the inability to publish an LGBT-themed book amounted to persecution.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• There is an inconsistency between the Appellee's finding that the section 33 presumption was rebutted and its ultimate finding that effective state protection exists.
• The state protection analysis was inadequately reasoned and relied on aspirational assertions rather than demonstrated results.
• The Appellee failed to apply the section 31 test and the four-step approach from B v. IPAT.
• The Appellee placed undue weight on the Appellant's non-reporting to police and did not account for risks in reporting.
• The Appellee cherry-picked COI and failed to assess COI as a whole, which, viewed in context, demonstrated inadequate protection for persons in the Appellant's circumstances.
• The Appellee failed to assess whether the refusal or blocking of publication of the Appellant's book constituted persecution.

Appellee's Arguments

• The Appellee's findings are not internally inconsistent; rebuttal of the section 33 presumption does not preclude a finding that effective state protection is available in the Appellant's particular circumstances.
• The Appellee applied the statutory test in section 31 and expressly adopted the four-step formulation in B v. IPAT when assessing state protection.
• The Appellee considered competing COI excerpts and provided coherent reasons for preferring some material over other material.
• Delay in bringing judicial review was not pressed as a substantive issue by the Appellee.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
N.U. v. I.P.A.T. [2022] IEHC 87	Authority cited in relation to rebutting the section 33 presumption (safe country of origin).	The Appellee relied on COI and N.U. to conclude the section 33 presumption was rebutted; the Court observed that this finding favoured the Appellant and could not invalidate the decision.
B v. IPAT [2019] IEHC 763	Four-step test for assessing effective state protection (reasonableness of steps, effective legal system, non-temporary nature, applicant's access).	The Appellee expressly applied the four-step formulation from B v. IPAT; the Court accepted that the Appellee applied that framework.
G.O.B. v. Minister for Justice [2008] IEHC 229	Presumption that, absent clear and convincing proof, a state is capable of protecting its citizens.	The Court cited G.O.B. to support the proposition that a presumption in favour of state protection applies and to uphold reasonableness of the Appellee's conclusion.
E.S. v. IPAT [2022] IEHC 613	Guidance on section 31 and on the treatment of COI: tribunals must consider all COI and explain reasons for conclusions even if contrary conclusions could be supported.	The Court compared the present case to E.S., finding the Appellee's approach to COI and explanation of reasons was analogous and adequate.
D.V.T.S. v. The Minister for Justice [2007] IEHC 305	Example of a decision where a tribunal's treatment of COI was criticised for failing to rationally analyse conflicting material.	The Court distinguished D.V.T.S. from the present case, finding no comparable omission or irrationality in the Appellee's COI analysis.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court divided its analysis into identified issues and proceeded as follows.

1. The Court excused the very short delay in filing the judicial review papers given the timing of the impugned decision and the need for a competent translator; the Appellee did not press delay as an issue.
2. The Court reviewed relevant statutory provisions quoted in the judgment (sections 7, 31 and 33 of the International Protection Act 2015) and accepted these governed the assessment of persecution and state protection.
3. The Court summarised the Appellee's findings: the Appellant's account was credible; there was a reasonable chance of future persecution; the section 33 presumption was rebutted; however, the Appellee found reasonable and effective state protection available to the Appellant.
4. On the alleged internal inconsistency between rebutting section 33 and finding state protection, the Court concluded the two findings were not mutually exclusive and rejected the Appellant's contention of inconsistency.
5. The Court examined whether the Appellee applied section 31 and the four-step B v. IPAT framework. It found the Appellee had expressly adopted that methodology, considered relevant COI (both positive and negative), and assessed protection against the Appellant's personal circumstances. The Court regarded this methodology as reasonable and compliant with the statute.
6. The Court emphasised the supervisory nature of judicial review: it is not the role of the Court to substitute its own view of the merits or COI where the decision-maker's process is lawful and the outcome was reasonably open. The Court found the Appellee provided coherent reasons and was entitled to prefer some COI extracts over others.
7. The Court considered the Appellant's criticism about reliance on non-reporting to police. While non-reporting cannot of itself disprove state protection, the Court accepted it is rational for a tribunal to consider whether a complaint was made; given the Appellant's inconsistent explanations, the Appellee's approach was not shown to be irrational.
8. As to the failure to publish the Appellant's book, the Appellee treated that matter and concluded the refusal of publication did not meet the statutory threshold for persecution under section 7. The Court found that conclusion was not legally irrational.
9. Overall the Court found the Appellant had not identified a legal basis to quash the Appellee's decision: the Appellee's process and reasoning were lawful and the conclusions were within the range of reasonable outcomes on the evidence considered.

Holding and Implications

APPLICATION REFUSED

Holding: The Court refused the Appellant's application for judicial review and upheld the Appellee's decision of 27 August 2024 refusing refugee and subsidiary protection.

Implications: The direct effect is that the Appellee's decision stands and the Appellant's judicial review is dismissed. The Court noted no new legal precedent was established; the judgment applies supervisory review principles to affirm that where a tribunal applies the statutory test and gives coherent reasons for weighing COI, its decision will not be overturned merely because another outcome was open on the material.

Appearances (Anonymised)

For the Appellant: Attorney O'Dwyer and Attorney Nic Rallaigh, instructed by Company A.

For the Appellee (second respondent): Attorney Henry, instructed by Company B.

Decision delivered by: Judge O'Higgins.