E.S. [Albania] v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal and Anor (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant is a young woman from Albania who applied for international protection on 4 August 2022, alleging domestic violence by her fiancé and absence of state protection in her country of origin. An International Protection Officer recommended on 10 January 2024 that neither refugee status nor subsidiary protection be granted. The Applicant appealed; an oral hearing was held on 22 October 2024 and the first respondent issued its decision on 30 October 2024 affirming the refusal. The Applicant filed a statement of grounds seeking judicial review (the filing date is recorded in the opinion as 3 December 2025) and obtained leave to apply by order dated 13 January 2025. The Applicant challenges the Tribunal's decision principally on the basis that the Tribunal failed to give adequate reasons for preferring a 2023 USDOS country report over two 2023 reports (Amnesty International and Freedom House) relied on by the Applicant. There is also a preliminary issue about extension of time for bringing the judicial review.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the court should extend time to permit the Applicant's judicial review application (a short extension of approximately six days was sought).
2. Whether the Tribunal gave legally adequate reasons where it relied on a 2023 USDOS report in preference to an Amnesty International 2023 report and a Freedom House 2023 statement, such that the decision should be quashed for lack of reasons when there was purportedly conflicting country of origin information (COI).

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant sought a short extension of time, explaining delay by reference to obtaining junior and senior counsel advices and the need to travel to swear the grounding affidavit.
• The Tribunal failed to give adequate reasons: where there was conflicting COI the Tribunal should have stated why it preferred the USDOS 2023 report over the Amnesty International 2023 report and the Freedom House 2023 material, relying on D.V.T.S. v Minister for Justice and subsequent cases applying that principle.

Respondents' Arguments

• On the time point, the respondents accepted the application was lodged out of time and left it to the court to decide whether the affidavits justified an extension.
• The Tribunal had considered all relevant COI; the Amnesty material did not conflict with the USDOS report on the issue of state protection (it addressed prevalence of domestic violence rather than the efficacy of state protection), and the Freedom House material contained only a brief sentence suggesting limited police resources.
• The Tribunal correctly applied the test for state protection (s.31 International Protection Act 2015) and relied on the presumption that states provide protection until proved otherwise (citing authority).
• Reasons for a decision need show a clear pathway; it is not necessary to address every sentence in every COI document.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first addressed the extension of time. It accepted the Applicant's and Applicant's solicitor's affidavits explaining the short delay (obtaining junior and senior counsel advices and travel to swear the grounding affidavit) and held that a modest extension of about six days was appropriate because no prejudice to the respondents would result and access to the courts should not be unduly restricted by rigid application of tight statutory time limits.

On the substantive point, the court read the Tribunal decision as a whole and concluded the Tribunal had given a full and fair consideration to the COI, citing the paragraphs in the Tribunal decision where Amnesty International, Freedom House and USDOS materials were considered. The Tribunal accepted that domestic violence was rife and accepted the Applicant's account of assaults and reporting to police. The Tribunal concluded that more recent COI (USDOS 2023) indicated significant improvements in police, judiciary and anti-corruption efforts and that state protection was available.

The court accepted the legal principle from D.V.T.S. that where there is genuinely conflicting COI the decision-maker must explain the preferment of one source over another. However, the court found here that the Amnesty extract relied on addressed prevalence of domestic violence and did not conflict with the USDOS material on the issue of state protection. The Freedom House material contained only a brief sentence suggesting limited police resources; the USDOS report contained detailed data and statements about laws, enforcement and protective mechanisms. The court held the Tribunal was not required to explain discounting every sentence in that brief report and that the Tribunal's reliance on the USDOS material provided a clear reasoned path. The duty to give reasons does not require addressing every single point or sentence in COI.

Accordingly, the court found the Tribunal's reasoning adequate and concluded the decision was fair, reasonable and open on the evidence.

Holding and Implications

APPLICATION REFUSED

Holding: The court granted a short extension of time to permit the application to proceed but refused the substantive relief sought by the Applicant and dismissed the challenge to the Tribunal's decision.

Implications: The direct effect is that the Tribunal's decision stands and no relief is granted to the Applicant. The court applied established principles on adequacy of reasons and COI conflicts but did not establish a new legal principle or alter existing precedent.