The decision



Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/09657/2018

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
On 18 March 2019
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 19 March 2019




Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GLEESON

Between

E M (Albania)
[ANONYMITY ORDER MADE]
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation:
For the appellant: No appearance or representation
For the respondent: Mr Ian Jarvis, a Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
DECISION AND REASONS
Anonymity
The Upper Tribunal of its own motion has made an anonymity order pursuant to Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008. Unless the Upper Tribunal or a Court directs otherwise, no report of these proceedings or any form of publication thereof shall identify the original appellant, whether directly or indirectly. This order applies to, amongst others, all parties. Any failure to comply with this order could give rise to contempt of court proceedings.

Decision and reasons
1. The appellant appeals with permission against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing his appeal against the respondent's decision to refuse him international protection under the Refugee Convention, humanitarian protection, or leave to remain in the United Kingdom on human rights grounds. The appellant is a citizen of Albania.
Background
2. The basis of the applicant's protection claim is that he was forced to work on cannabis cultivation by a criminal gang, headed by a Member of Parliament in Albania and remains at risk from them if returned to Albania now. Following a referral under the NRM, the respondent as Competent Authority found that there were no reasonable grounds for considering him to be a victim of human trafficking.
3. The appellant contended that members of the gang deliberately burned and permanently damaged his hand when he refused to continue working on the cannabis farm.
4. After he left Albania in February 2012, the appellant says that the gang visited his home address and asked his family members where he was: they said he was out of the country. There had been no such visit since 2016 and he was not in contact with the gang. He still speaks regularly to his mother: it appears that the gang is no longer interested in him.
First-tier Tribunal decision
5. The First-tier Judge dismissed the appeal on all grounds, finding that the gang had no continuing interest in the appellant and that there were no other features of his claim for which leave to remain ought to be granted on humanitarian protection or human rights grounds. The Judge also found that there was an internal relocation option for this appellant.
Permission to appeal
6. Permission to appeal was granted on the basis that the First-tier Judge did not approach the NRM decision correctly: see ES (section 82 NIA 2002: negative NRM) Albania [2018] UKUT 00335 (IAC).
Rule 24 Reply
7. There was no Rule 24 Reply.
8. That is the basis on which this appeal came before the Upper Tribunal.
Upper Tribunal hearing
9. At the Upper Tribunal hearing, the appellant did not either attend or arrange representation. No explanation has been advanced for his absence and I conclude, therefore, that he has no interest in pursuing this appeal.
Analysis
10. For the respondent, Mr Jarvis accepted that following the decision of the Court of Appeal in Secretary of State for the Home Department v MS (Pakistan) [2018] EWCA Civ 594, the Upper Tribunal when assessing an asylum claim is not bound by a negative NRM decision.
11. However, that does not dispose of the question of internal relocation. Without the assistance of any submissions on the appellant's behalf, I am not satisfied that there is any material error of law in the First-tier Tribunal decision.

DECISION

12. For the foregoing reasons, my decision is as follows:
The making of the previous decision involved the making of no error on a point of law
I do not set aside the decision but order that it shall stand.

Date: 18 March 2019 Signed Judith AJC Gleeson Upper Tribunal Judge Gleeson