The High Court has refused an Albanian national’s application to quash an International Protection Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting his claim for refugee status and subsidiary protection. The court found no breach of fair procedures in the Tribunal’s decision to determine his accelerated appeal on the papers without first inviting further submissions.
The applicant had sought international protection in Ireland, saying he feared persecution in Albania over a blood feud linked to debts incurred by his father. He alleged that he and his brother had been threatened and that he was assaulted after returning home from a period in hiding. The International Protection Office rejected his account on credibility grounds and recommended that he receive neither refugee status nor subsidiary protection. It also found Albania to be a safe country of origin, bringing the appeal under the accelerated procedure in section 43 of the International Protection Act 2015.
The applicant ticked “yes” to requesting an oral hearing on his appeal form, but wrote “n/a” when asked to explain why a hearing was in the interests of justice. His solicitor sought an extension of time to lodge the appeal. The Tribunal emailed her on 21 September 2020 to say the appeal had been accepted and that, under the accelerated procedure, it would decide the case without an oral hearing unless it considered one necessary in the interests of justice. The email said the hearing request would be brought to the assigned Tribunal member’s attention.
The solicitor said she did not receive the email and heard nothing further until the Tribunal’s decision reached her in September 2021. She argued that the Tribunal should have told the applicant in advance that it intended to proceed without an oral hearing, giving him a chance to argue for a hearing and make submissions on the appeal itself. The respondents said appellants in accelerated appeals were on notice that the default was a papers-only decision and had responsibility for advancing their cases.
Mr Justice Cian Ferriter said the Tribunal was entitled to proceed on the basis that its email had been received. The applicant and his solicitor had not followed up for about 12 months to check whether the late appeal had been accepted or to advance reasons for an oral hearing or submissions on the appeal. The judge said the appeal form, legislation and Tribunal practice note made clear that no further communication should be assumed after an appeal was lodged.
The judge clarified that an earlier decision, SK v IPAT, did not establish a general two-stage process requiring a prior decision on whether to hold an oral hearing. He said whether fair procedures might require a prior decision in a case supported by specific submissions would depend on the facts and remained unresolved. The court refused the relief sought.