The High Court has refused an Albanian applicant’s challenge to the International Protection Appeals Tribunal’s refusal of his protection appeal, finding that the grounds of review had not been established. The court also ordered him to pay the respondents’ costs.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as EH, sought protection in Ireland after claiming that he feared harm in Albania from a woman’s brother and family because of his relationship with the woman. The tribunal accepted that the relationship existed but did not accept that he faced a risk of persecution from her family.
The challenge concerned the tribunal’s assessment of his credibility, including its treatment of varying accounts of threats, his decision to return to Albania rather than seek protection in Italy, and his claim that he encountered the woman’s brother in Shkoder.
On the accounts of threats, the High Court found that the descriptions differed as to who made threats, how often they were made and where they occurred. It rejected the applicant’s submissions that repetition or interpretation explained those differences. The judge said the tribunal had given him an opportunity to address the inconsistencies and was entitled to find that they undermined his credibility on a central part of his claim.
The applicant also argued that the tribunal had not adequately explained why his decision to return to Albania counted against his credibility, given his account that he feared likely imprisonment if he sought protection in Italy. The judge said the tribunal’s reasoning was discernible: on the applicant’s account, he chose to return to a place near the source of the threat rather than face a possible period in prison while his claim was considered. The judge held that the tribunal was entitled to find that choice incredible.
The tribunal had also rejected the claimed chance encounter with the woman’s brother in Rus, an area of Shkoder. The applicant argued that questions about how the man recognised him and learned of his return invited speculation. The High Court held that the tribunal was entitled to probe the evidence about the alleged meeting and to decide whether it occurred. Its finding was open to it and involved no irrationality or unfairness.
The court refused the relief sought and made an order for the respondents’ costs against the applicant. The judgment does not itself decide whether the applicant would face harm if returned to Albania; it reviews the tribunal’s decision and concludes that the stated grounds for challenging it were not made out.