Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
See more information ...
Click here to read the full judgment
S.G. (Albania) v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal and Anor (Approved)
Smart Summary
Summary of Judgment
Factual and Procedural Background
This judgment, delivered by Judge O'Donnell on 19 December 2025, concerns an application for judicial review by the Appellant seeking to quash a 2 July 2024 decision of Company A which affirmed a recommendation by Company C to Company B to refuse the Appellant refugee status and subsidiary protection. The Appellant is a national of Country A who arrived in The State on 22 January 2022 and applied for international protection on 31 March 2022. He alleged a sustained campaign of threats, assaults and an April 2021 incident in which masked assailants fired a handgun at him, linked to a dispute with another family (referred to in the source as the R. family). Company C and Company A found important elements of his account inconsistent, implausible or not credible and rejected his claims that he faced persecution or a real risk of serious harm on return.
Procedurally, the Appellant appealed Company C's recommendation to Company A on 24 January 2024 (papers-only request for oral hearing refused). Company A issued its decision dated 3 July 2024 (communicated 5 July 2024). The Appellant sought leave for judicial review; leave was granted and an ex parte application was made on 7 August 2024. The High Court refused the substantive relief and granted an extension of time for filing the application.
Legal Issues Presented
- Did Company A fail to take into account the explanation in the Appellant's solicitor's letter (24 January 2024) regarding the Appellant's assertion that his attackers wore masks, or fail to give adequate reasons for finding that assertion lacked plausibility and coherence (constitutional justice and s.46(6) of the 2015 Act)?
- Did Company A fail to take into account the representations regarding the Appellant's account of escaping from his attackers, or fail to give adequate reasons for finding that account lacked plausibility (constitutional justice and s.46(6) of the 2015 Act)?
- Did Company A fail to take into account the representations regarding the vagueness and lack of specific detail in the Appellant's account of his escape, or fail to give adequate reasons for that finding (constitutional justice and s.46(6) of the 2015 Act)?
- Did Company A fail to take into account representations about the inconsistency between the neighbours' alleged powerful connections and the claim that the attackers wore masks, or fail to give adequate reasons for that finding (constitutional justice and s.46(6) of the 2015 Act)?
- Did Company A fail to take into account the explanation that the Appellant could not identify the neighbour's wife (a politician) as explained in the solicitor's letter, or fail to give adequate reasons for that finding (constitutional justice and s.46(6) of the 2015 Act)?
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The IPO and Company A wrongly characterised key aspects of the Appellant's account as vague, implausible or inconsistent.
- The solicitor's written submissions (24 January 2024) provided explanations for the perceived inconsistencies (masks, distance to bushes, naming of a local politician, travel history) which Company A failed to take into account.
- The absence of an oral hearing rendered a papers-only appeal ineffective given the credibility issues; an oral hearing was requested.
- The Appellant sought an extension of time for filing; reasons were provided for a short delay and counsel sought to admit a further affidavit addressing time.
Respondents' Arguments
- There is no general obligation to address every point raised; a general statement that all materials were considered is sufficient unless shown otherwise (relying on Rana & Ali).
- Company A and Company C had sufficient materials, interviews and translations; Company A properly conducted a de novo assessment and gave adequate reasons.
- Any new assertions in submissions largely contested the reasonableness of IPO findings rather than presenting materially new evidence; Company A was not required to rehearse a point-by-point response.
- Objection to late affidavit on extension of time was raised but respondents were prepared to argue the merits if affidavit admitted; Court admitted the affidavit and granted the extension.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| V.J. v. Minister for Justice [2019] IESC 75 |
There is no obligation to hold an oral hearing simply because an issue of credibility arises; what is required is that the applicant have an opportunity to make his case. |
Company A relied on this authority to justify refusal of an oral hearing, concluding the Appellant had adequate opportunity on the papers. |
| S.K. v. IPAT [2021] IEHC 781 |
Supports proposition that in a papers-only appeal Tribunal can reassess credibility and form different views to IPO. |
Referred to by Company A for the proposition that a papers-only appeal can reassess credibility. |
| M.A. v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2015] IEHC 528 |
Similar support for assessing credibility on the papers and reweighing evidence de novo. |
Relied on by Company A alongside other High Court authorities to justify papers-only handling. |
| P. (Zimbabwe) v IPAT and Minister for Justice [2025] IEHC 403 |
Test and approach for applications for extension of time under s.5 of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000. |
Cited by the Court to adopt the applicable approach; the Court found good and sufficient reasons and granted an extension. |
| AAA v Minister for Justice [2017] IESC 80 |
Describes need for heightened scrutiny and a "thorough review" standard in international protection cases. |
Cited to support that a thorough review standard applies to judicial review of international protection decisions. |
| X v. IPAT, Case C-756/21 |
CJEU principle that assessment of individual circumstances requires "vigilance and care" given the fundamental rights at stake. |
Used to justify the requirement for heightened scrutiny in assessing claims of fear of persecution. |
| Connelly v An Bord Pleanála [2021] 2 IR 752 |
Two related requirements on adequacy of reasons: (i) affected person entitled to know in general terms why decision made; (ii) enough information to decide whether to seek review and to enable court review. |
Relied upon for the test of adequacy of reasons; Court applied it and found Company A's reasons adequate. |
| I.R. v. Minister for Justice [2015] 4 IR 144 |
Guiding principles for assessing credibility: assessment must consider full picture, be based on correct facts, avoid conjecture, and reasons must be cogent and legitimately connected to adverse findings. |
Cited as the touchstone for reviewing credibility findings; Court assessed whether Company A's reasons met these standards and concluded they were adequate. |
| Rana & Ali v Minister for Justice [2024] IESC 46 |
Statement that a general assertion that all materials were considered will be sufficient unless there is reason to think the statement is inaccurate. |
Respondents relied on this; Court reconciled it with statutory s.28 obligations and concluded Company A's general and specific reasoning sufficed here. |
| K.F.D. (Togo) v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2015] IEHC 788 |
Heightened requirement to consider explanations given, particularly in papers-only appeals; tribunal must engage with responses to adverse credibility findings. |
Cited by Appellant; Court distinguished the present case as not involving unaddressed material explanations and found Company A had engaged with the issues. |
| M.G.D. v Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2014] IEHC 566 |
Example where tribunal failed to consider material submitted on appeal and decision was quashed for not taking account of relevant material. |
Referenced as authority showing importance of engaging with material that is objectively material; Court examined whether similar failure occurred and found it did not. |
| M.A.R.A. (Nigeria) v Minister for Justice [2014] IESC 71 |
Appeal process involves de novo consideration and requires a "full and thorough enquiry" into documentary evidence and submissions on every point of appeal. |
Quoted to underline Tribunal's duty on appeal; Court found Company A performed the required de novo assessment. |
| M.M. v. Chief International Protection Officer & Ors [2022] IECA 226 |
Illustrates situation where a core claim may not have been considered by decision-maker. |
Cited to define the category of cases where a failure to consider a core claim vitiates the decision; Court found no such failure here. |
| Bujari v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2003] IEHC 18 |
Failure to consider an applicant's explanation of a material difference can justify leave and quash a decision. |
Referred to in assessing whether Company A failed to consider explanations; Court found Company A had engaged sufficiently. |
| F.H.Z. v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2005] IEHC 462 |
Absence of evidence that decision-maker considered an explanation may amount to substantial grounds for challenge. |
Used to illustrate the type of procedural unfairness to guard against; Court concluded the requisite engagement occurred in this case. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court first addressed the extension of time and, applying the approach in P. (Zimbabwe), found good and sufficient reasons for a one-day delay (papers filed 7 August 2024) and granted the extension, having regard to minimal delay, lack of attributable prejudice, and steps taken by the Appellant.
On the substantive judicial review, the Court set out general principles: the High Court's role in judicial review is limited, the Tribunal has primary responsibility for factual findings, and a heightened "thorough review" standard applies in international protection cases (AAA; X v. IPAT). The Court applied the Connelly and I.R. principles on adequacy of reasons and credibility review.
The Court examined whether Company A gave adequate reasons for its adverse credibility findings (paras 26–30 of Company A's decision) and whether Company A failed to take into account the Appellant's written submissions. The Court concluded:
- Company A's reasons were intelligible and met the adequacy threshold: it identified vagueness, lack of specificity and implausibility in key elements (threat history, the April 2021 incident, the role of police connections, inability to identify a local politician) and explained why those matters led to disbelief of a well-founded fear of persecution or real risk of serious harm.
- Company A conducted a de novo assessment of credibility on appeal and expressly stated that the notice of appeal and supporting documentation were considered. The Court found no evidential basis to conclude Company A failed to take into account the solicitor's submissions; much of those submissions contested the reasonableness of IPO's characterisation rather than advancing materially new evidence or explanations.
- Authorities requiring specific engagement with explanations (e.g., K.F.D., M.G.D., Bujari, F.H.Z.) were considered; the Court distinguished those cases on the facts, finding no parallel failure to address a materially new or core explanation in this case.
Accordingly, the Court did not quash Company A's decision on grounds of inadequate reasons or failure to take account of submissions.
Holding and Implications
DISPOSED OF: The application for judicial review was refused.
Implications: The direct effect is that Company A's decision refusing refugee status and subsidiary protection remains in place. The Court granted an extension of time for filing the judicial review application. The judgment found Company A's reasons adequate and that Company A had engaged with the Appellant's submissions; the Court did not set a novel precedent beyond applying established principles concerning adequacy of reasons, de novo appellate assessment, and the threshold for proving a tribunal failed to take account of material submissions.
Click here to read the full judgment