The High Court dismissed an Albanian applicant’s challenge to the International Protection Appeals Tribunal’s refusal of his protection appeal, finding that the tribunal’s reasons were clear when its decision was read as a whole.
Mr Justice Heslin delivered the judgment on 12 July 2022 in X.T.’s judicial review proceedings against the tribunal, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General. The applicant sought to quash the tribunal’s decision of 3 September 2021, which affirmed the International Protection Office’s recommendation to refuse refugee status and subsidiary protection.
The application was filed 21 days after the statutory deadline. The respondents said they made “no strenuous objection” to extending time. The judge granted the extension, accepting that the justice of the situation was met.
The challenge concerned whether the tribunal had given adequate reasons for finding that X.T. was not threatened by Democratic Party supporters. The applicant’s case traced back to his father’s kidnapping during Albania’s 1997 civil war. The tribunal accepted that account and accepted that X.T. had been a member of the Socialist Party, but rejected his claim that he was threatened in 2013 by supporters of the rival party.
Justice Heslin said the tribunal’s decision did not rest on the concluding sentence alone. It included a detailed account of X.T.’s evidence and the documents he submitted. The court noted that the alleged threats were verbal, were said to have occurred at political gatherings in 2013, and were not followed by physical harm or further threats during the six years before X.T. left Albania. He continued to live at the same home, attended university and worked during that period, and did not report the alleged threats to police.
The tribunal also considered a medical document that recorded treatment for gastritis and an appendectomy, but did not support X.T.’s claims of anxiety-related symptoms and hospitalisation. The judge said the evidence and documents described in the tribunal’s decision made the rationale for its conclusion apparent. The court was not being asked to reassess the credibility finding, and its role was not to substitute its view for the tribunal’s.
The judge held that X.T. had not shown that the tribunal failed to give reasons or acted without an evidential basis. The judicial review claim was dismissed. The respondents were successful; the judge’s preliminary view was that costs should follow the event. The parties were invited to agree the form of order, including costs, within 14 days, with short written submissions to follow if they could not agree.