New rules for asylum applications see big decrease in successful claims

Asylum seekers are much less likely to obtain refugee status since the Government’s introduction of strict new immigration laws last June.

A decrease in successful applications has occurred both at the first stage of the international protection process and at the appeal stage, according to figures obtained by The Irish Times.

The International Protection Act 2026, which became law on June 12th, overhauled Ireland’s entire refugee system in line with the EU Migration and Asylum Pact. It is part of a stricter approach to immigration taken by the Irish Government in response to record numbers of applicants for international protection.

The Act introduced stricter border procedures, enhanced screening of applicants and mandated faster processing times for claims.

In the first five months of 2026, before the introduction of the new system, 15 per cent of 10,786 applications for asylum at the time were successful at first instance.

[ Right to asylum under threat as Europe turns rightwardOpens in new window ]

Over the next three months, there were 507 applications, of which just 49, or 9.6 per cent, were successful.

The drop in approval rates was also evident at the appeals stage. Under the new Act, the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (Ipat) was replaced by the Tribunal for Asylum and Returns Appeals (Tara).

Tara emphasises speedy decisions. Unlike the old system, the vast majority of cases are decided based on a review of the files, rather than an in-person hearing.

Before the introduction of the new system, Ipat granted 25 per cent of appeals. Since June, Tara has heard 281 appeals from unsuccessful asylum seekers and has granted just 16 per cent.

However, while the trend has accelerated under the new system, figures show the success rate for asylum applications has been falling for several years.

In 2023, 36 per cent of applications were granted at first instance. This dropped to 28 per cent in 2024 and 19 per cent last year, when a record 20,162 applications were processed.

During the same period, the success rate at appeal stage remained stable, varying between 25 and 26 per cent, before the system was overhauled.

Immigration lawyer Cathal Malone said the reason behind the drop in successful appeals by applicants was because in-person hearings have been vastly curtailed.

[ More than 1,100 asylum seekers have voluntarily left the State this yearOpens in new window ]

“They’ve taken the lawyers out of it,” he said.

Under the previous system, many cases were heard in-person, where lawyers for the applicant could present evidence from their client. This was particularly important in explaining any discrepancies or missing details in the asylum application, Malone said.

“It allowed for cases to be explored fully and properly. So, it shouldn’t be a surprise a certain number of people were found to be credible and were approved.”

Under the 2026 act, he explained, oral hearings were only conducted in the most limited of circumstances.

“Appeals are heard on the papers only and there is no opportunity to introduce fresh evidence.”

Lawyers are able to assist asylum seekers in drafting their appeal. But due to the emphasis on quick decisions, they often have very little time to work on a case before a hearing, he said.

The situation has also been made more difficult for asylum seekers when they first make an application, Malone said. Applicants for international protection were previously given a questionnaire and allowed to take it away to complete over several weeks.

Now, they must fill out the questionnaire on a digital device in the International Protection Office. The questions are in English only, and often must be filled out with the aid of an interpreter.

“That’s the foundational document of the entire case. If you mess something up on that, you forget to include something or get a date wrong – your credibility is pretty much shot throughout the entire process,” said Malone.

The drop in approval rates raises the possibility that people who are entitled to asylum are being rejected, he claimed.