The High Court quashed International Protection Appeals Tribunal decisions refusing international protection to two anonymised brothers and remitted both cases to the tribunal for fresh consideration. Mr Justice Max Barrett held that the tribunal’s credibility findings contained multiple legal deficiencies, including failures to give reasons and breaches of fair procedures.
The judgment, delivered on 12 March 2020, concerned applications by VH and LH. VH had sought protection on the basis that he faced persecution or serious harm in Albania over a land dispute involving his family, and also relied on his Roma ethnicity. The tribunal had rejected his appeal. LH’s appeal had been refused on substantively identical grounds.
In VH’s case, the tribunal had rejected a copy of a declaration said to be from a village head. It noted that the document was not submitted in original form and appeared to have been obtained for the protection claim. The High Court said the tribunal did not explain why the copy was objectionable or whether it had asked why only a copy was provided. It also found that the declaration’s self-serving nature was not, by itself, a reason to reject it.
The tribunal had described VH’s account of a 2016 attack as vague. The court said it had not identified what details were missing or why it expected further details. It also found no logical connection between VH’s lack of legal title or personal involvement in the land dispute and whether an attack on him had occurred. The court separately found the tribunal’s rejection of the brothers’ accounts of discrimination based on their Roma ethnicity to be bald and unreasoned.
VH’s application was brought out of time. Although the affidavit evidence did not explain the whole period of delay, the court found that avoiding the injustice of leaving the tribunal’s deficient decision in place provided good and sufficient reason to extend time. A separate ground concerning state protection had been withdrawn.
For LH, the court adopted the same conclusions as in his brother’s application because the grounds and objections were substantively identical. It granted certiorari in respect of both tribunal decisions and sent each matter back for fresh consideration. The judgment did not decide whether either brother qualified for international protection.