The High Court quashed a decision refusing an Albanian man international protection and remitted his case to the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT) for fresh consideration. The court found that the tribunal had relied on an internal relocation finding without applying the required test and procedure.
Mr S had challenged the IPAT’s 16 November 2018 decision affirming a recommendation that he receive neither refugee status nor subsidiary protection. His claim included that his eldest brother, a former Albanian political activist, had been recognised as a refugee in Ireland in 2003 and was now an Irish citizen. Mr S said he faced risks in Albania linked to his family’s political views and a violent land dispute.
He said three masked men broke into his home at night and beat him unconscious, causing serious injuries including a broken ankle. He also reported being threatened with a gun. The judgment says the IPAT appeared to accept the substantive aspects of his account, including the beating.
The tribunal had said there was no persuasive evidence the violence would continue if Mr S returned to Albania. It reasoned that the land dispute was local and that he could live elsewhere in the country. The High Court identified problems with that reasoning, including that the tribunal used internal relocation to support its conclusion that there was no well-founded fear of persecution, even though relocation does not arise if no such fear is established.
The court also rejected the argument that relocation was irrelevant to subsidiary protection simply because there was no Convention nexus. It said the tribunal had erred in law by relying on internal protection without applying the statutory test and procedure, as discussed in an earlier case.
On a separate ground, Mr S argued that the tribunal had considered only risks from state actors and had failed to assess potential serious harm by non-state actors. The High Court rejected that challenge. It found the tribunal had considered the circumstances of the land dispute, which focused mainly on non-state actors, before concluding there was no evidence of serious harm or a subsisting threat.
The court therefore granted certiorari and sent the matter back to the IPAT for fresh consideration. It did not itself decide whether Mr S qualifies for refugee status or subsidiary protection.