- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
NG v The Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration
Factual and Procedural Background
The Applicant, a Georgian national, sought international protection in Ireland on the basis of domestic violence by her former husband. The IPO refused the application, finding that effective state protection was available in Georgia. [1][2]
IPAT accepted that the Applicant faced a real risk of serious harm on return but concluded that Georgia provided effective, though imperfect, state protection. The Applicant did not appeal that decision. [3][4][5]
The Minister subsequently refused permission to remain and issued a report under section 50 of the International Protection Act 2015 concerning refoulement. The Applicant relied on medical evidence and reports concerning assaults allegedly suffered by her mother and daughter. [6][7][8][9]
The Applicant obtained leave to seek judicial review of the section 50 decision and the consequential deportation order. A one-day extension of time was granted because of the length of time involved and a change in legal personnel. [10][11]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the section 50 decision was unlawful, irrational or unfair because the Minister failed properly to assess the risk of refoulement, state protection, new evidence, medical evidence and country-of-origin information. [12][13]
- Whether the Minister was required to conduct an Article 8 assessment in the section 50 decision. [14][15]
- Whether the deportation order was invalid because section 50 had not been complied with. [16][17]
- Whether the Minister gave adequate reasons for concluding that the new material did not undermine the finding that adequate state protection was available in Georgia. [18][19]
Arguments of the Parties
Applicant's Arguments
- The Minister failed properly to assess the risk arising from severe domestic violence and the alleged inability of the Georgian authorities to provide effective protection. [20]
- The Minister failed to consider or give adequate weight to the new police reports, medical evidence and protection order concerning the Applicant's family members. [21]
- The Minister incorrectly assessed the medical evidence and failed to address the risk of deterioration in the Applicant's mental health on return. [13]
- The Minister failed to engage with, or put to the Applicant, the 2023 country-of-origin report. [22][23]
- The Minister failed to conduct an Article 8 and proportionality assessment and failed to provide adequate reasons. [24][25][26]
- The Applicant argued that the new documents showed an escalation in the former husband's conduct, including attacks on the Applicant's mother and daughter, making the Minister's conclusion irrational. [27]
Respondent's Position
- The Respondent agreed to accept the Court's view concerning the requested one-day extension of time. [28]
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| DE v The Minister for Justice & Equality & Ors [2018] IESC 16 | The relevant threshold for establishing a real risk of a serious decline in health on return. | The Court held that the medical evidence did not irrationally or unfairly fail to meet that threshold. [29][30] |
| ZP v The Minister for Justice and Equality [2025] IEHC 30 | A decision-maker may rely on decisions made at earlier stages, subject to considering relevant new information received thereafter. | The Minister was entitled to rely on IPAT's unchallenged decision because the relevant country information had already been available to IPAT. [31][32] |
| Y v Minister for Justice & Equality [2021] IEHC 82 | The obligation to provide reasons, including the principle identified in Mallak. | The Court distinguished the authority because, in context, the Minister's reasons for treating the new material as insufficient were clear. [33][34] |
| Mallak | The legal obligation to provide reasons for an administrative decision. | The Court concluded that the reasons were sufficiently apparent from the Minister's decision when read as a whole. [33][34] |
| Rutledge v Fingal County Council [2026] IEHC 223 | A decision should not be quashed for lack of reasons where nobody could be in real doubt as to the reasons. | The Court applied that principle in rejecting the challenge based on inadequacy of reasons. [35] |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court rejected the Article 8 complaint. Article 8 had not been raised in the submissions made to the Minister, section 50 did not require an Article 8 assessment, and Article 8 had already been considered in earlier decisions. [14][15]
The Minister was entitled to conclude that the medical evidence did not establish the required real risk of a serious deterioration in health. The Applicant indicated that further medical and legal reports would be provided, but they were not supplied. The Applicant could also continue receiving medical assistance in Georgia. [29][36][30]
The Court found that the 2023 country-of-origin material did not constitute genuinely new information: the relevant passages substantially mirrored material already before IPAT. The Applicant had not relied on the 2023 report before the Minister or argued that state protection was inadequate. [37][32][38][39]
The police and medical documents concerning the Applicant's mother and daughter did not, without supporting submissions, demonstrate inadequate state protection. They indicated that investigations and protective measures had followed the complaints. The Minister was therefore entitled to proceed on the basis that no material had been submitted challenging IPAT's finding. [40][41][42]
Regarding reasons, the Court read the Minister's statement in context. The reference to there being no new information was understood as meaning that no new material had been submitted challenging the prior finding that Georgia provided adequate protection. The Applicant therefore failed to show that insufficient reasons had been given. [43][19][35]
Holding and Implications
The application for judicial review was refused. The Court upheld the section 50 decision and, consequently, the challenged deportation order was not set aside. [35][44]
The Respondent was provisionally considered entitled to costs, subject to the Applicant making written submissions within the specified period if she objected. The decision determined the dispute on its facts and did not set a new precedent. [45]
Alert