The applicant, a Venezuelan national, applied for international protection in Iceland. Following judicial proceedings, she received a final decision rejecting her application. Consequently, she was subjected to a removal order. She then requested the postponement of the legal effects of this order, but it was refused to her on appeal. Subsequently, she appealed for a review of this decision, which was accepted. The first decision of the Directorate of Immigration in her case was annulled and the authorities were ordered to reconsider her case in substance. The applicant requested the appointment of a specific advocate to assist her in her new interview, but the Directorate of Immigration refused, arguing that a representative had already been appointed in her case. The directorate referred the applicant to legal provisions stating that she could request the appointment of a specific advocate at her own expense.

The applicant contested this decision before the Immigration Appeals Board. She argued that the Directorate of Immigration had violated the principles of non-discrimination and of legality, and had failed to provide a sufficient reasoning for adopting a new interpretation of the law. The applicant argued that the law provided that the appointment of her first representative terminated when she received the final rejection decision in connection to her first application. She also highlighted that the contested decision was against the established practice of the directorate, thus constituting discrimination. The applicant also argued that the directorate's argument that maintaining the same representative in new proceedings ensured respect of the principle of confidentiality, noting that the directorate stated this decision would be discretionary, rather than subject to a mandatory evaluation as legally required for administrative decisions. Concerning the possibility to appoint a specific advocate at her own expense, the applicant argued that the relevant provisions did not apply in her case because the new procedure was initiated by the government, thus rendering the authorities responsible for the appointment of her advocate.

Following the applicant's reasoning, the Immigration Appeals Board annulled the contested decision and requested the Directorate of Immigration to re-examine the applicant's request.