A man applying for refugee status, who claims he fled his bombed village from the Taliban as a teenager but was denied his application here because Irish authorities did not believe he was from Afghanistan, has had that refusal overturned.The applicant, who was born in 2002, was in his late teens when he claims he left Afghanistan in March 2021.Upon arrival in Ireland in October 2022, he applied for international protection.In the course of his application, the man completed a standard form of questionnaire in November 2022. He was subsequently interviewed by an international protection officer (IPO) in January 2024.The IPO decided the applicant failed to provide sufficient detail in relation to the area he claimed to be from and was inconsistent with ‘country of origin information’ standards regarding his region, workplace and geography, therefore affecting his credibility.The IPO decided the man’s description “of houses in his village being burnt was not externally consistent” and that he provided documents that could not be verified by the IPO.The man, who cannot be identified, claimed refugee status on grounds of persecution and serious harm by the Taliban.The IPO determination concluded: “Ultimately, the applicant failed to provide sufficient detail on the area he claimed to live and work, and when this was put to the applicant and he was given an opportunity to respond, he further failed to provide sufficient detail.”In her High Court judgment this week, Judge Sara Phelan found in favour of the man, now 24, who took his High Court challenge against the Minister for Justice and the IPO, who decided the refusal.The judge decided the IPO had not taken sufficient account that the applicant was a teenager when he carried out refugee status interviews here about his previous circumstances regarding claims he fled the country.The IPO had decided the applicant’s nationality was fundamental to his credibility and his application for international protection but this was not assessed any further by the IPO during his 2022 application interview.The High Court found the IPO had not taken sufficient account of “the applicant’s age at that time and the level of understanding that could reasonably be expected”.The judge wrote: “Counsel for the applicant had submitted the reason why minors are treated differently is because they experience things differently and would not comprehend or be able to explain local politics and geography in the same way that an adult would be able to.”She said: “There is no evidence that his age was considered by the IPO at all.“His account may have been accurate and detailed within the realm of understanding that a teenager might be anticipated or expected to have, but this lens of interpretation was seemingly not applied by the IPO to the applicant’s account of events.” She granted an order quashing the IPO determination and remitted the matter for a fresh determination to a different international protection officer.