E.S. v International Protection Appeals Tribunal & Anor (Approved)

                  In these proceedings the Applicant challenges the refusal of the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (hereinafter �the Tribunal�) to recognise his right to subsidiary protection (it being accepted that a Convention nexus was not demonstrated such as would support an entitlement to refugee status), on the basis of findings that while the Applicant had suffered past persecution in his native South Africa, State protection was available.�

                  The Decision made by the Tribunal (hereinafter �the Decision�) pursuant to the provisions of the International Protection Act, 2015 (hereinafter �the 2015 Act�) is �challenged as being legally flawed by reason of a failure to apply the correct legal test, a failure to properly reason the decision, and a lack of rationality.�

�If persecution or other serious unjustified harm stems from the state then such fear is

well-founded because de facto there is no viable avenue of protection available in the

country of origin. If it stems from non-state agents then any such fear is only well-founded if the state is unwilling or effectively unable to provide protection against such