The High Court has refused an Albanian man leave to bring judicial review proceedings challenging the rejection of his application for international protection.
In a ruling delivered on 28 March 2025, Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan found he had not shown “substantial grounds” to proceed. The case was considered at the leave stage under section 5 of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000. The court did not conduct a full judicial review hearing.
The man’s protection claim was based on a fear that his friend’s father would harm him after a dispute over a €500 loan. He said the friend’s father had threatened him and was connected to the police. The International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT) accepted, applying the benefit of the doubt, that one threat had been made. It rejected his claim that he had not reported it because of an honest belief in police corruption, citing inconsistencies in his account of the father’s police role.
The man argued that the tribunal had failed to engage properly with his explanation for the inconsistency. He also argued that the tribunal breached fair procedures by referring to payslips and his capacity to repay the debt without first giving him an opportunity to comment.
Justice Phelan said the inconsistency had been put to the man during his interview, and the International Protection Office had recorded and addressed his response. The man had not added anything further about the issue in his appeal submissions. The judge considered that his interview response did not amount to a real explanation requiring further engagement by the tribunal.
On the payslips, the judge said the tribunal’s observation about his ability to repay the debt appeared after its core findings and was incidental to its reasoning. The man had not disputed that the payslips showed earning capacity or explained what he could have usefully said if the point had been put to him. The judge therefore did not consider the argument about fair procedures substantial.
The IPAT had affirmed the recommendation that he receive neither refugee status nor subsidiary protection. It had also refused his request for an oral hearing. The High Court’s ruling refused leave to challenge that decision; it did not itself make a new decision on the protection application.