The High Court has rejected a challenge by an Albanian man to a decision refusing him refugee status and subsidiary protection in Ireland.
The applicant, identified as S.G., said he and members of his family had faced threats and assaults in Albania arising from a dispute with another family. His account included an alleged April 2021 incident in which masked men confronted him, one armed with a handgun, before shots were fired as he escaped. He also claimed his family’s opponents had political connections which prevented effective police protection.
The International Protection Appeals Tribunal rejected key parts of his account as vague, implausible or inconsistent and upheld a recommendation that he be refused international protection. Albania has been designated a safe country of origin.
S.G. challenged the Tribunal decision on two specific grounds. He argued that it had failed to give adequate reasons for adverse credibility findings and had failed to properly consider explanations and submissions made on his behalf during the appeal.
Mr Justice Barry O’Donnell rejected both arguments. He held that, whether or not one agreed with the Tribunal’s reasoning, its decision made sufficiently clear why it doubted the applicant’s account, including its concerns about the masked attackers, his escape and the claimed political connections of the other family.
The judge also found no evidence that the Tribunal had materially failed to consider the applicant’s written submissions. Those submissions largely disputed the reasonableness of the earlier credibility findings rather than supplying substantial new factual explanations, the court found.
The High Court stressed that the case had not been pleaded as a broader challenge to the reasonableness of the Tribunal’s findings or to its decision not to hold an oral hearing. The court therefore confined itself to the procedural grounds on which leave had been granted.
S.G. was granted an extension of time because his judicial review papers had been filed only one day late and no prejudice had resulted. However, the substantive application was refused. The court’s provisional view was that the respondents should receive their costs, with the matter listed for further argument on January 15th, 2026.