The applicants, two adults and their minor children, were Balkan Egyptians with Albanian nationality. In 2018, they were refused international protection in Iceland following their Dublin transfer to France. Then, the adult applicants refused to have their children interviewed, arguing the decision could be made on the basis of their own statements, thus the outcome was the same for all of them. In 2023, the applicants applied for international protection in Iceland again. The authorities found that the parents did not qualify for any form of protection and decided not to interview their children, based on the applicants' previous choice and noting that their situation had only changed after their transfer to France.

After their applications for international protection were rejected by the Directorate of Immigration, the family was deported and subjected to a 2-year entry ban. Subsequently, they requested the Immigration Appeals Board to annul these decisions and to grant them refugee status, alternatively residence permits on the basis of humanitarian considerations. The applicants put forward that they were facing racial discrimination in their country of origin. They reported a physical assault after which both the police and healthcare providers refused to provide them assistance. They also claimed that their children were victims of bullying, ostracisation, abuse and subjected to threats in school and in their village where Balkan Egyptians constitute a small minority, which hindered their access to education. They argued that the unwillingness and inability of the government to protect them from violence could amount to inhuman and degrading treatment, supporting their arguments with country-of-origin information.

Based on available country-of-origin information, the Immigration Appeals Board established that Balkan Egyptians did suffer from discrimination, but also that the Albanian Constitution and laws aimed at protecting everyone's human rights, including those of minorities, notably the right to file complaints about the behaviour of officials and the rights to healthcare and education, with noticeable progress achieved in the recent years. The board also pointed to the existence of institutions to enforce these rights. Moreover, the board argued that the applicants did not sufficiently demonstrate the government's unwillingness and inability to protect them, or that their situation amounted to persecution. Thus, the applicants were refused refugee status. Regarding the children's application, the board agreed that their viewpoint was sufficiently conveyed through their parents' statements and found that it was in their best interests to be returned together with their parents to keep receiving their support. Based on the same country-of-origin information, the board found that applicants were not eligible to receive residence permits on the basis of humanitarian considerations.

Regarding the decisions of the directorate concerning the applicants' rejection, return and ban on entry, the Appeals Board recalled that the directorate had considered the application manifestly unfounded and therefore had not granted the applicants a period of time to perform a voluntary return. However, the board noted that amendments were made to the relevant provisions on 15 December 2022, so that it would be in line with the Return Directive. The board declared that since returnees must be given a period of time for their voluntary return, the authorities' decisions lacked a legal basis, annulled them and requested the Directorate of Immigration to reconsider this part of their decisions.