Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/00278/2016

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 6 October 2016
On 14 October 2016

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SHAERF

Between

THE Secretary of State FOR THE Home Department
Appellant
and

[O B]
(anonymity ORDER NOT MADE)
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr S Staunton of the Specialist Appeals Team
For the Respondent: Mr S Harding of Counsel instructed by Marsh & Partners, Solicitors

DECISION AND REASONS

The Respondent
1. The Respondent, to whom I shall refer as "the Appellant", is a citizen of Albania born on [ ]. In 1999 she moved with her family to Italy where she married in 2010 and has two children by her husband, born in 2009 and 2012. She states he was charged with drug offences in Italy and eventually deported to Albania in 2013 after which she lost contact with him. On 4 March 2015 she returned to Albania to look for him. She states she was attacked by a gang to whom her husband owed money. She subsequently entered the United Kingdom clandestinely and claimed asylum on 13 March 2014. She feared return to Albania as a lone woman who had been trafficked.
2. On 15 March 2015 her claim was referred to the Competent Authority which concluded that she was a victim of trafficking whereupon she was granted discretionary leave expiring on 11 September 2016.
3. She states she was trafficked for prostitution in Albania by the gang who claimed her husband was in debt to it.
The Secretary of State's Decision
4. The Appellant, to whom I shall refer to as "the SSHD", on 6 January 2016 rejected the Appellant's claim for asylum and proposed to remove her under Section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 as amended. The SSHD did not challenge in any material respect the Appellant's account but considered it would be safe for her to return to Albania and if necessary she could relocate away from the area where she had previously lived.
Proceedings in the First-tier Tribunal
5. The Appellant lodged notice of appeal under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 as amended (the 2002 Act) on 18 February 2016. The Grounds were formulaic although reference was made to a statement to be prepared. The Grounds were substantially amended by her subsequent and current solicitors by a letter dated 23 February 2016.
6. By a decision promulgated on 18 August 2016 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Plumptre allowed the appeal on asylum and human rights grounds.
7. On 12 September 2016 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Frankish granted the SSHD permission to appeal on the grounds that the Judge had erred in treating the children of the Appellant as illegitimate when she was in fact married and had given insufficient reasons for her finding on the Appellant's social class. Having regard to the country guidance in TD and AD (Trafficked women) Albania CG [2016] UKUT 00092 (IAC) this reasoning or lack of it was arguably an error of law.
Upper Tribunal Proceedings
8. The Appellant attended the hearing but understood very little English. I explained in simple terms to her the purpose of the hearing. At the start of the hearing I asked the parties if in relation to the grounds for appeal identified by the SSHD the Tribunal in assessing the risk on return had to take into account whether an individual fell within any of the recognised risk categories or would be perceived on return to fall into any of such categories, analogously to the provisions in the construction of the Refugee Convention that fear on account of political opinion includes fear on account of imputed political opinion.
9. Mr Staunton for the SSHD acknowledged this and properly stated that he would seek to rely only on the grounds set out in the application for permission to appeal which regrettably had failed to recognise that risk arises in respect of persons who are or would be perceived to fall into any recognised risk category.
10. In these circumstances I indicated to Mr Harding that I did not need to hear submissions for the Appellant. I stated in relation to the grounds for appeal referring to the Appellant's social class that I considered the Judge had given reasons for her finding at paragraphs 36 and 37 of her decision and these in turn were, although not mentioned in the decision, supported by the replies the Appellant had given to questions 14, 18, 19 and 27 when interviewed on 6 November 2014 by an Immigration Officer: see pages C9 and 10 of the SSHD's bundle.
Conclusion
11. Having regard to the points mentioned above, I find that the SSHD has not shown that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal contained any error of law such that it should be set aside. Consequently, the decision shall stand.
Anonymity
12. There was no request for an anonymity order and having considered the appeal I find none is warranted.

SUMMARY OF DECISION

The First-tier Tribunal's decision did not contain an error of law and shall stand. The consequence is that the Appellant's asylum appeal succeeds.

Signed/Official Crest Date 11. x. 2016

Designated Judge Shaerf
A Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal