E.S. [Albania] v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal and Anor (Approved) [2026] IEHC 120 (03 March 2026)

E.S. [Albania] v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal and Anor (Approved) [2026] IEHC 120 (03 March 2026)

The Tribunal was not required to explicitly state why it preferred the USDOS report over the Amnesty International report, as there was no genuine conflict between them on the issue of state protection. The Tribunal's reasoning was clear and adequate, and all relevant COI was considered. The extension of time was granted due to good reasons, but the substantive relief was refused as the Tribunal's decision was reasonable and adequately reasoned.

Citation
[2026] IEHC 120
Parties
Applicant: E. S. (Albania); First Respondent: The International Protection Appeals Tribunal; Second Respondent: The Minister for Justice
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
03 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Application for Relief
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
International Protection, Adequacy of Reasons, Country of Origin Information, Extension of Time, State Protection, Domestic Violence
Immigration Law Administrative Law International Protection Adequacy of Reasons Country of Origin Information Extension of Time State Protection Domestic Violence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E. S. (Albania)

Applicant

The International Protection Appeals Tribunal

First Respondent

The Minister for Justice

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Application for Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal failed to give adequate reasons for preferring one piece of country of origin information (COI) over others
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal failed to consider relevant COI
  3. 3 Whether an extension of time should be granted for bringing the application

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was not required to explicitly state why it preferred the USDOS report over the Amnesty International report, as there was no genuine conflict between them on the issue of state protection. The Tribunal's reasoning was clear and adequate, and all relevant COI was considered. The extension of time was granted due to good reasons, but the substantive relief was refused as the Tribunal's decision was reasonable and adequately reasoned.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Extension of time for bringing the application granted
  • Reliefs sought by the applicant refused