L.A. v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal and Anor (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, born in 1999 and in his twenties, is a national of The State. He arrived in The State on 26 October 2022 with his mother and immediately sought international protection. The claims were based on alleged persecution in The State linked to the mother's bisexuality and hostility said to have been directed at the Appellant by association. The Appellant alleged ongoing bullying, threats, and one violent assault by neighbours, loss of a professional football career, use of a smuggler to flee, confiscation of passports, and a fear of being killed if returned. He relied, inter alia, on a letter from Company C (a football club) and Country of Origin Information (COI).

Company A (the appeals tribunal) allowed the Appellant's mother's appeal and recommended refugee status. The same tribunal member decided the Appellant's appeal on the same day but rejected the Appellant's claim, finding lack of credible past persecution, insufficient evidence of targeting by association, credibility shortcomings, absence of medical corroboration for the assault, and reliance on The State's designation as a safe country of origin under S.I. 121/2018. The Appellant sought leave to apply for judicial review pursuant to s.5 of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act, 2000. The ruling was delivered by Judge Phelan on 29 January 2026.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Tribunal's decision contained an internal inconsistency (paras. 37 and 52) regarding COI and risk by association.
2. Whether the Tribunal failed to assess relevant COI, specifically regarding risks to children of LGBTQ+ parents in The State.
3. Whether the Tribunal failed to consider or explain the differing outcome between the Appellant's case and the Appellant's mother's successful protection claim.
4. Whether the Tribunal's reasoning was inadequate and in breach of s.46(6) of the International Protection Act 2015 and constitutional requirements for reasons, including in light of YY v. Minister for Justice [2017] IESC 61.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Tribunal's findings at paras. 37 and 52 are internally inconsistent regarding whether COI supported a risk by association.
• The Tribunal failed to assess relevant COI about risks to children (by association) of LGBTQ+ parents in The State.
• The Tribunal did not adequately address or explain why the Appellant's claim failed when the Appellant's mother's claim succeeded.
• The Tribunal's reasons were inadequate, breaching s.46(6) IPA 2015 and constitutional standards; reliance was placed on YY v. Minister for Justice [2017] IESC 61.

Respondents' Position (as reflected in the decision)

• Company A accepted the Appellant's identity factors (nationality, that his mother is bisexual) but rejected key elements of his narrative as vague, lacking dates, detail, corroboration and medical evidence, undermining credibility.
• Company A accepted COI showing difficulties for LGBTQ+ persons in The State but found no COI supporting risk to adult children by association; counsel for the Appellant conceded the COI was silent on that specific question.
• Company A expressly referenced and relied upon the separate decision granting protection to the Appellant's mother and explained both decisions on their individual evidential bases.
• The Tribunal concluded there was no credible past persecution and no reasonable chance of future persecution on the accepted facts, noting The State is a designated safe country of origin.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court applied the well-established substantial-grounds threshold for leave under s.5 of the 2000 Act: the Appellant must identify facts upon which a reasonable or weighty claim may be made that the impugned decision is unlawful on stateable legal grounds and not be trivial or tenuous.

The court addressed each ground in turn:

• Internal inconsistency: The court examined paras. 37 and 52. Para. 37 indicated COI made discrimination-by-association plausible if other evidence were accepted; para. 52 recorded that, given the Tribunal's adverse credibility findings, no COI or other evidence supported risk based on the accepted material facts. The court found these passages coherent rather than inconsistent.
• Failure to assess relevant COI regarding children of LGBTQ+ parents: Counsel for the Appellant conceded COI before the Tribunal did not address risks to children by association. The court's review of the exhibited COI found material on risks to LGBTQ+ individuals but nothing suggesting adult children of LGBTQ+ persons face risk merely by association. The court concluded no substantial ground for challenge on this basis.
• Failure to consider mother's successful protection claim: The court noted Company A expressly referenced and exhibited the mother's decision. The court explained that the mother's claim succeeded because her account was detailed, coherent and supported by COI without adverse credibility findings, whereas the Appellant's account was found vague and unsupported. The differing factual findings explained the different outcomes and required no further explanatory linkage.
• Inadequate reasoning / breach of s.46(6) IPA 2015 and constitutional justice: The court considered YY. It accepted the general principle that departures from earlier findings should be engaged with and explained, but concluded that here the Tribunal's reasons were clear: the two decisions rested on different accepted facts and credibility findings. The court found no inadequacy of reasoning on a substantial-grounds test.

Overall, the court found the Tribunal's reasoning logical and coherent, that the Appellant had not established substantial grounds for judicial review, and that the threshold for leave was not met.

Holding and Implications

LEAVE REFUSED

Direct effect: The Appellant's application for leave to apply for judicial review pursuant to s.5 of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act, 2000 is refused. The Tribunal's decision stands. The court did not set aside or create a new precedent; its decision turned on the application of established tests to the particular factual and credibility findings in this case.