(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: UI-2022-002163
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On the 12 September 2022
On the 17 October 2022
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PERKINS
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION made)
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
For the Appellant: Ms K Reid, instructed by Marsh & Partners
For the Respondent: Ms S Lecointe, Home Office Presenting Officer
DECISION AND REASONS
1. Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant is granted anonymity. No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the appellant, likely to lead members of the public to identify the appellant. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court. I make this order because the appellant seeks international protection and publicity might create a risk to his safety.
2. This is an appeal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing the appellant’s appeal against a decision of the Secretary of State refusing him asylum or other form of international protection.
3. Both parties before me accept that there are significant errors in the determination.
4. First, it is not clear that the judge has applied the lower “real risk” standard of proof to the assessment of the asylum claim. He may have done but this is a matter on which there should be clarity.
5. Possible of more concern is that the judge has not explained how he was able to conclude that the appellant could be returned safely to Albania when it is an established fact that the appellant is a victim of trafficking and, apparently, established that his mother and father in different ways were involved in trafficking taking place. It makes no sense to conclude without explanation that he could be returned to the influence of his family and be safe. Similarly is it not explained how he could establish himself independently in Albania given the finding that have been made about his circumstances.
6. I wish to make it plain that this Decision is not a ruling, or even an indication, that the appellant needs protection but it is finding that the conclusion that he does not need protection has not been explained adequately.
7. These deficiencies necessarily impact on the Article 8 finding. Again, Ms Lecointe accepted that it was remarkable that the judge did not even accept that removal would be an interference with the private and family life of the appellant. It might be that removal is proportionate and justified but is very hard to see it is not an interference, so that is something else which, if right, is not explained.
8. Both parties agree that the deficiencies of this decision are such that they can only be remedied by my ruling that there is an error of law, setting aside the decision and directing that the appeal be heard again in the First-tier Tribunal with no findings preserved.
Notice of Decision
9. The First-tier Tribunal erred in law. I set aside its decision and direct that the appeal be heard again in the First-tier Tribunal.
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Dated 20 September 2022