Mr. Justice Barr delivered judgment in the High Court on 5 February 2025 in a case brought by a Somali national (the “Applicant”) against the International Protection Office (the “First Respondent”) and the Attorney General. The Applicant sought to challenge the First Respondent’s decision to refuse him refugee status, as well as the Attorney General’s refusal of his application for leave to remain in Ireland. The parties accepted that the validity of the second decision was entirely dependent on whether the First Respondent’s decision was upheld.
The Applicant argued that the First Respondent had failed to consider a key aspect of his claim—namely, that as a member of the Gabooye clan, he would face racial discrimination, persecution, and a risk of serious harm if returned to Somalia. He also contended that the First Respondent had failed to obtain and consider relevant country of origin information (COI), including a 2022 UNHCR report, which supported his claim that members of the Gabooye clan face persecution in Somalia.
In response, the Respondents raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the Applicant should not be permitted to challenge the First Respondent’s decision through judicial review when he had an alternative remedy in the form of a statutory appeal to the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT), which he had already initiated by lodging a notice of appeal.
The Court found that the First Respondent had not expressly considered whether the Applicant would face persecution due to his membership of the Gabooye clan. However, this was because the Applicant had not clearly raised the issue in his original application. When reviewing the case documentation in its entirety, the Court found only indirect references to potential discrimination based on his Gabooye clan membership. The primary claim advanced by the Applicant was that he would be at risk of harm from Al-Shabaab if returned to Somalia. The Court held that a decision-maker cannot be expected to assess and determine issues that were not expressly raised by the Applicant. Given this finding, the Court concluded that the alleged failure to obtain and consider relevant COI, including the UNHCR report, was no longer a point of contention.
Furthermore, even if the Applicant’s argument had been accepted, the Court determined that it would be inappropriate for him to challenge a first-instance decision while simultaneously pursuing a statutory appeal. The Court reaffirmed the settled legal principle that where a statutory appeal is available, an applicant must exhaust that remedy before seeking judicial review of the initial decision.
Accordingly, the Court refused the relief sought in the Applicant’s notice of motion on the basis that he had an alternative remedy through his pending appeal before the IPAT.
Click here to read the full judgment.