Member Login

Decision refusing Albanian mother and children international protection was unacceptably ambiguous

By: James Cross BL

or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments

High Court grants Albanian national and her three children judicial review of the decision refusing them international protection, on the grounds that: there was an unacceptable degree of ambiguity in the International Protection Appeals Tribunal’s decision; the decision erred in the manner it considered country of origin information; and the tribunal applied an unduly high test for the standard of proof.

Asylum and immigration – judicial review – Albanian mother and her three children challenging the decision of the International Protection Appeals Tribunal refusing them international protection – country of origin information – father refused asylum – deportation order made – returned to Albania – wife was working as a journalist in Albania and suffered various threats -
accepted that she worked as a part-time employee of a news organization in her teens – tribunal irrationally classified her as a minor player because of her age – met her husband – continuing threats against her - husband and wife then applied for visas to come to Ireland - curious how the husband was able to get a visa given that he was the subject of a deportation order – came to Ireland for a conference – children born in the state – husband applied for leave to remain – application refused – mother and her children applied for asylum - husband reapplied for revocation – no decision to date – flaws in the decision refusing leave to remain - procedural history - alleged failure to provide adequate reasons - unacceptable degree of ambiguity in crucial finding - decision is unacceptably unclear – alleged material error of fact and failure to consider relevant country information - tribunal finding was that there was no country information setting out that the first-named applicant “will be persecuted” - natural meaning of the expression used is that there is no country information that political journalists will be persecuted and this is clearly wrong - alleged error of law by applying erroneously high standard of proof - standard of proof as phrased and conceptualised by the tribunal member pitches the test at an unduly high level - alleged failure to assess credibility in the context of relevant and accurate country of origin - erroneous attitude of the tribunal to country information cannot be insulated from the finding in relation to past persecution – judicial review granted –

Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *