The High Court has quashed a decision refusing international protection to an Albanian man, finding that the International Protection Appeals Tribunal failed to give adequate reasons on state protection and did not properly consider whether his family membership could provide a basis for a refugee claim.
Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered judgment on 14 November 2019 in proceedings brought by the anonymised applicant, Mr C. The tribunal had affirmed the International Protection Office’s recommendation that he should receive neither refugee status nor subsidiary protection.
The court answered yes to challenges concerning the tribunal’s reasons for concluding that state protection would be available in Albania, its application of the statutory test, and its failure to assess whether further reports or information to Albanian police might reasonably have led to protection. It gave those answers by reference to its reasoning in a separate judgment delivered the same day in proceedings brought by Mr C’s wife, Ms B, and their children.
The judge also found that the tribunal had failed to consider Mr X’s political connections, which Ms B had raised. The judgment records the issue as relevant to the assessment of state protection.
On the refugee-law question, Mr C said he feared persecution because he was Ms B’s husband and belonged to her family. The court held that the tribunal erred by failing to consider whether the family could constitute a particular social group under the Refugee Convention, or to explain why a Convention link did not arise on that basis. The judge referred to the House of Lords decision in K v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Fornah v Secretary of State for the Home Department.
The court ordered certiorari, quashing the tribunal’s decision and remitting Mr C’s case to the tribunal for fresh consideration. It did not itself grant him refugee status or subsidiary protection.