ZB & Ors v Minister for Justice (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicants, nationals of Albania, entered the State in May 2015 and applied for asylum shortly thereafter. Their minor son was born in the jurisdiction in March 2016. The Applicants’ refugee status applications were processed by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner (“ORAC”), which recommended refusal in April 2016, finding only some elements credible. Their subsidiary protection claim was assessed under the International Protection Act 2015 (“the 2015 Act”), and on 31 July 2018, an International Protection Officer (“IPO”) also recommended refusal. The Minister for Justice (“the Respondent”) refused permission to remain pursuant to s. 49(4) of the 2015 Act on 1 August 2018. The Applicants appealed to the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (“IPAT”), which affirmed the refusals on 25 October 2019.

The Applicants sought a s. 49(7) review of the refusal decision on 6 November 2019, making submissions concerning the prohibition of refoulement, including claims of a blood feud threat and political association risks if returned to Albania. Further representations including country of origin information were submitted in December 2019 challenging IPAT’s negative credibility findings and its evidence assessment. The Respondent affirmed the refusal on 2 March 2020. Leave for judicial review was granted on 29 May 2021 on the ground that the Respondent failed to provide reasons why deportation would not expose the Applicants to a refoulement risk contrary to s. 50(1) of the 2015 Act.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Respondent complied with the duty to give adequate reasons in the s. 49(7) review decision regarding the prohibition of refoulement under s. 50 of the 2015 Act.
2. Whether the Respondent was required to specifically consider and give reasons addressing the Applicants’ representations challenging IPAT’s findings, including negative credibility findings and the existence of a blood feud.
3. Whether the Respondent’s reliance on earlier protection decisions without expressly addressing new representations was lawful.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court examined the statutory framework governing s. 49(7) review and s. 50 prohibition on refoulement under the 2015 Act, emphasizing the Respondent’s duty to consider all relevant information presented by the Applicants, including representations challenging prior protection decisions. While the Minister is entitled to adopt IPO and IPAT findings without conducting a de novo review, this entitlement is conditioned on the absence of new evidence or material error in those findings.

In this case, the Applicants submitted significant representations contesting IPAT’s findings on credibility and the existence of a blood feud, supported by country of origin information. The Court found that although the Respondent stated all representations were considered, the decision lacked any explanation or reasoning addressing why these specific challenges to IPAT’s findings were dismissed. This omission meant there was no discernible pathway in the decision explaining the rejection of concerns critical to the refoulement assessment.

The Court rejected the Respondent’s argument that addressing these issues would amount to an impermissible appeal against IPAT’s decision, clarifying that the Respondent has an independent statutory obligation to consider all relevant information for the purpose of s. 50. The absence of reasons engaging with the Applicants’ representations undermined the fairness and transparency of the decision-making process, failing the duty to give adequate reasons as articulated in the cited authorities.

Given the lack of clear reasoning and failure to properly engage with material submissions, the Court concluded that the decision could not stand.

Holding and Implications

The Court granted an order of certiorari quashing the portion of the s. 49(7) review decision relating to the prohibition of refoulement. The matter was remitted to the Respondent for fresh consideration of s. 50 of the 2015 Act with proper engagement and reasons addressing the Applicants’ representations.

The Court also awarded costs to the Applicants against the Respondent. No new precedent was established; the ruling enforces existing principles requiring that administrative decisions must adequately address and reason upon material submissions relevant to the statutory test for refoulement.