Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-003273

First-tier Tribunal No: HU/01211/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 17 July 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GREY

Between

FM
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
And

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr N. Paramjorthy of Counsel
For the Respondent: Ms S. Cunha, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 7 November 2024

DECISION AND REASONS
1. This is an appeal brought by appellant against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Degirmenci (‘the Judge’) promulgated on 22 May 2024, in which she dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the Secretary of State for the Home Department’s decision to refuse his application for leave to remain on human rights grounds.
Factual Background
2. The appellant is an Albanian national and is 58 years old. He arrived in the United Kingdom most recently in January 2016.
3. Previously, the appellant entered the UK and claimed asylum in 1999 claiming to be a Kosovan national. On 22 August 2016 the appellant applied for leave to remain in the UK based on his private life. This application was refused and certified as clearly unfounded on 12 February 2018.
4. On 28 January 2022, the appellant made a further application for leave to remain in the UK based on his private life. This was refused on 23 May 2023 with a right of appeal. The appellant appealed the respondent’s refusal and a hearing took place at Hatton Cross IAC on 29 April 2024. By a decision promulgated on 22 May 2024 the Judge dismissed the appellant’s appeal on Article 3 and Article 8 ECHR grounds.
The Judge’s decision
5. The Judge considered the expert reports of Dr Persaud and Dr Dhumad which the appellant relied on in support of his appeal. Dr Persaud did not have sight of the appellant’s medical records and the Judge found that there was no evidence that Dr Persaud had done anything other than accept wholesale what he had been told in the appellant’s case. Referring to HA (expert evidence, mental health) [2022] UKUT 00111 the Judge concluded that “less weight” could be placed on Dr Persaud’s report.
6. In respect of the report of Dr Dhumad, who also did not have sight of the appellant’s medical records, the Judge notes various limitations with this report and states that she can only place some weight on the report. The Judge states that she does not find the report sets out the true position of the appellant’s mental health and that it is more than likely that the appellant has exaggerated his symptoms for the purposes of his appeal but finds that the appellant may be suffering from some form of depressive illness.
7. In respect of Article 3 the Judge found that the appellant had failed to demonstrate that he is a seriously ill person. The Judges notes that the appellant is not currently receiving any treatment for his mental health and records that his representative at the hearing did not seek to argue that there is no availability or accessibility of treatment in Albania in these circumstances.
8. At [32] to [44] of the decision the Judge addressed the issue of very significant obstacles to reintegration in Albania. The Judge notes that the appellant’s father passed away in January 2023, that his mother lives between Albania and Italy, and he has five brothers and a sister. The Judge found that the appellant had lived in Albania until the age of 50 save for the period when he came to the UK and claimed asylum as a Kosovan national in 1999. The appellant had worked in Albania including five years as a police officer. He would have retained knowledge of the language and culture of Albania. The appellant failed to demonstrate that he would face very significant obstacles to reintegration into life in Albania or that he would face unjustifiably harsh consequences on return so as to amount to a disproportionate interference with his Article 8 rights. The appellant challenges the Judge’s finding on the issue of reintegration into life in Albania on account of his claimed experience as a victim of sexual abuse.
The grounds of appeal
9. The grounds set out a number of challenges to the Judge’s decision which include assertions that:
a. The Judge failed to engage with the psychiatric report and the clinical observations of Dr Dhumad;
b. The Judge erred in law by stating that she could only attach limited weight to the psychiatric report of Dr Dhumad;
c. There was procedural unfairness in the Judge not asking counsel why the report of Dr Persaud was not provided to the appellant’s GP;
d. The Judge erred in failing to make findings on key aspect of the appellant's case including whether the appellant was a victim of sexual abuse, whether the appellant had a subjective fear and/or objective fear of his wife’s family, and the impact of the respondent’s disclosure at the hearing that his wife was in the UK and claimed to be a Kosovan national; and
e. The Judge’s findings as to Article 3 and the appellant’s ability to integrate into society in Albania are tainted by material errors of law.
10. Permission to appeal was granted on all grounds by First-tier Tribunal Judge I Boyes. However, at the error of law hearing Mr Paramjorthy indicated that he would not be advancing all grounds before me and clarified that the appellant was no longer challenging the Judge’s findings in respect of Article 3.
11. In Mr Paramjorthy’s submission the Judge’s failure to make a finding in relation to the appellant’s account that he was a victim of sexual abuse at the hands of his uncle in Albania between the ages of 9 and 19 years of age was material to the assessment of his Article 8 claim, specifically in respect of whether the appellant would encounter very significant obstacles to his integration into society in Albania on return there (paragraph 276ADE(1)(vi) of the Immigration Rules). Mr Paramjorthy submitted that the appellant would not have the support of his six siblings in Albania because he was not in contact with them as he blamed them for not protecting him from his uncle. This was the sole ground pursued before me at the error of law hearing.
Analysis and decision
12. The appellant did not give oral evidence at the hearing on the recommendation of Dr Dhumad. The appellant’s entire account can therefore be discerned from his two witness statements in the documentation before the Judge.
13. In his first witness statement dated 12 April 2022 the appellant makes no reference to any sexual abuse. In relation to his return to Albania he states at [16] that he could not return to Albania because he has no savings in order to start his own business and he would not be able to support himself.
14. In the appellant’s second witness statement which is unsigned and undated and which was provided to the Tribunal on the day of the hearing, the appellant now makes reference to his experience as a victim of sexual abuse perpetrated by his paternal uncle between the age of 9 and 19 years of age. There is no reference in either witness statement to the appellant’s siblings.
15. There is no reference in the report of Dr Persaud from 2022 that the appellant disclosed anything about being a victim of sexual abuse but he did speak of this with Dr Dhumad in April 2024, who recorded that the appellant become distraught at recounting what had happened to him.
16. At [18] of the decision the Judge states that she takes into consideration that it is the appellant’s claim that the first time he was able to open up about the sexual assault was at his consultation with Dr Dhumad. The Judge states that she accepts that there are often credible reasons for the late reporting of sexual abuse.
17. I accept that the Judge did not make clear findings on whether or not she accepted the appellant’s account that he was a victim of sexual abuse. This in itself does not amount to an error of law. It is necessary to assess whether this was a matter that was before the Judge on which she was required to make a finding in order to determine the disputed issues in this appeal. It is Mr Paramjorthy’s submission that a finding on this matter was required in order to determine the issue of very significant obstacles to integration in Albania on account of the appellant’s claim that he is not in contact with and will not seek support from his siblings due to their failure to protect him from his uncle.
18. Having regard to the evidence and documentation before the Judge, I find that this was not a matter before the Judge on which she was required to reach a finding in order to determine the appeal. The reason provided by the appellant in his witness statements for claiming that he was unable to return to Albania was because he does not have any savings in order to start a business of his own and support himself.
19. Even if it were accepted that that the appellant was a victim of sexual assault in Albania, the clear focus of his supplemental witness statement was that he had “nothing but hatred for his father in that he did not prevent [him] from being sexually abused and groomed by [his] uncle” at [7]. There is no mention at all in his statement about his siblings and the account now put forward by Mr Paramjorthy that he also holds his siblings responsible for failing to protect him from his uncle. His witness statement is entirely silent on any information in relation to his siblings.
20. The case put forward in the appeal skeleton argument before the Judge is similarly silent on the matter now raised by Mr Paramjorthy. In relation to the appellant’s Article 8 claim the skeleton argument simply states at [12] “it is therefore submitted that the appellant cannot integrate into society in Albania due to his poor mental health”. Nothing more is submitted in relation to Article 8.
21. Even if it were the case that I was persuaded that the Judge was required to reach a definitive finding on this matter, I am not persuaded that it would have made a material difference to the outcome of the appeal. No evidence was adduced to suggest that the appellant would have no contact with or support from his six siblings in Albania or, if that were the case, that he would encounter very significant obstacles to reintegration in Albania as a result of the absence of sibling support. If it is the case that the appellant is a victim of sexual abuse and that return to the location of this abuse could trigger further mental health issues, or a deterioration in his mental health, it is not clear why the appellant would be unable to relocate to another area in Albania. He has lived in Albania for many years since, on his account, the abuse ended many years ago at the age of 19.
22. I find that the Judge’s Article 8 assessment was conducted within the correct legal framework, applied the correct legal principles, made findings on all maters that were required of her and provided cogent and clear findings throughout. The appellant has failed to establish that the Judge made any material error of law in dismissing his appeal.

Notice of Decision
The appellant’s appeal is dismissed.
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve the making of a material error of law and therefore stands.

Sarah Grey
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

11 November 2024