Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-003789

First-tier Tribunal No: RP/00019/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 28 May 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HANSON

Between

MS (Algeria)
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr B Lams, instructed by TNA Solicitors.
For the Respondent: Mrs Arif, a Senior Home Office Presenting Officer.

Heard at Birmingham Civil Justice Centre on 19 May 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

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.

DECISION AND REASONS

1. In a determination promulgated on 29 January 2025 the Upper Tribunal found error of law in the decision of the First-tier Tribunal and set that determination aside other than the findings in relation to section 72 Nationality, Immigration Asylum Act 2002.
2. It was found the First-tier Tribunal materially erred in law in failing to consider the protected characteristics on which the Appellant has been recognised as a refugee, namely as a gay man who was and is a transvestite and/or is transgender. It was found that analysis needs to be remade afresh because (i) the combination of protected characteristics is accepted, and (ii) the evidence adopted by the Appellant was not properly considered.
3. The Appellant relies upon a country expert report from Alison Pargeter’s relating to Algeria dated 3 November 2023, and a medicolegal report of Dr Thelma Thomas dated 3 August 2003.
4. The Appellant’s immigration history, set out in the Decision to revoke his refugee status and to refuse a protection and human rights claim, dated 25 July 2023, reads:
4. You first came to the attention of Immigration Enforcement on 04 September 2013 when you made a claim for asylum, you were interviewed on 01 October 2013 and claimed that you had arrived in the United Kingdom on 17 August 2013 on your own passport with a student visa valid until 04 April 2014.
5. Checks made confirm that you were issued with a 6 month multi-entry visitor visa on 4 July 2013. The visa was valid for entry up to 4 January 2014. You then applied for a visa to complete a 2 week exchange trip for an ETC International College from 17 August 2013. You applied for the visa at the British embassy in Paris by web application.
6. During the interview you claimed that your life was in danger, that your intentions of coming to the United Kingdom were to remain here, which you did not disclose on entry. On 01 October 2013, you were issued with illegal entry papers due to verbal deception under 2(1)a, and that you had breached 26(1)c of 1971 Act as amended. You were also detained.
7. On 09 October 2013 you were granted asylum and leave to enter until 09 October 2018.
8. Between April 2014 and January 2015, you received four convictions for offences including: burglary and theft; attempted burglary with intent to steal; using threatening, abusive, insulting words or behaviour with intent to cause fear or provocation of violence; theft.
9. You next came to the attention of Immigration Enforcement on 21 March 2015 following your conviction received on 6 February 2015 as set out below, you were issued with a decision to deport you on conducive grounds pursuant to the Immigration Act 1971 on 02 May 2015. In response, you submitted representations.
10. On 08 September 2015, a decision was made not to pursue deportation against you due to the country situation. You were issued with a warning letter on 09 September 2015.
11. Between May 2016 and June 2018, you received eight convictions for offences including: theft; resisting or obstructing a constable; failing to surrender to custody at appointed time and various driving offences.
12. You next came to the attention of Immigration Enforcement on 23 July 2018 while being held on remand. You subsequently received two convictions on 1 August 2018 for offences including theft and failing to surrender to custody at appointed time and for failing to comply with the requirements of a community order. On 3 August 2018, you additionally received a conviction for offences including racially or religiously aggravated fear or provocation of violence in words or writing; failing to surrender to custody at appointed time. On 19 September 2018 a decision was made not to pursue deportation and you were, again, issued with a warning letter on 25 September 2018.
13. You again came to the attention of Immigration Enforcement on 07 December 2018 and 25 January 2019 following further convictions and a decision was made in both instances not to pursue deportation and you were issued with warning letters.
14. On 04 February 2019 you came to the attention of Immigration Enforcement while being held on remand, due to removal not being within a reasonable timescale you were released with a requirement to report monthly. You were returned back to custody on 26 March 2019 on licence recall, and again on 13 May 2019.
15. On 05 February 2019 you were issued with administrative removal papers as an overstayer, your refugee limited leave having expired on 9 October 2018.
16. You next came to the attention of Immigration Enforcement on 30 July 2019 following a further conviction, an assessment of the case was made and due to you committing offences which were not serious enough to consider deportation when balanced against your refugee status a decision was made to not pursue deportation and a warning letter was issued.
17. On 12 August 2019 a review of your case took place, and a decision was made to issue a Deportation Decision on Conducive Grounds, the Confirmation of Conveyance was returned on 15 August 2019.
18. On 16 August 2019 your case was referred to the Asylum Team for consideration of Revocation of Refugee Status.
19. On 21 August 2019 you were released from Prison at the end of your custodial sentence with a requirement to report.
20. You were recalled to prison for 14 days on 29 October 2019.
21. You were taken back into custody on 16 January 2020 and released at the end of your custodial sentence.
22. You next came to the attention of Immigration Enforcement on 24 January 2020 following two convictions received the day before for offences including battery.
23. After your release on 3 April 2020, you committed further offences and were remanded in custody on 24 April 2020. On 5 October 2020, you received a further conviction for robbery and breaching a criminal behaviour order resulting in a sentence totalling 51 months (4 years, 3 months). You were subsequently issued with a Decision to Deport under the UK Border Act 2007 on 04 May 2021, the Confirmation of Conveyance was returned on 11 May 2021.
24. On 2 June 2022, you were referred into the National Referral Mechanism further to your claim that you had been forced to sell controlled drugs in the UK. On 10 June 2022, a decision was made that there were reasonable grounds to believe that you may have been a victim of modern slavery.
25. On 08 August 2022 a deportation order was signed and on 10 August 2022 this deportation order together with a notice of decision to revoke (cease) refugee status and to refuse a protection and human rights claim and notice of appeal forms were sent to the immigration reporting centre at Lunar House Croydon, to be served on you when you next reported there on 30 August 2022.
26. On 06 January 2023 you were recalled to custody on licence for a fixed term of 28 days as and placed at HMP Lewes.
27. You were subsequently detained under immigration powers.
28. On 20 February 2023 you had an induction interview at Harmondsworth IRC and during this interview you restated your reasons for not wanting to return to Algeria.
29. On 31 January 2023 you were served with an IS.91R notice informing you that you were to be detained under immigration powers at the end of your sentence of recall on 02 February 2023 and stating the reasons for detention.
30. On 02 March 2023 you were sent an IS.151F monthly progress report in which it was noted that on 02 February 2023 you were detained under Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971 because you are subject to a deportation order requiring you to leave the United Kingdom and that you were being detained pending your removal or departure from the United Kingdom.
31. On 03 March 2023 a decision was made that you were to be disqualified from protection under the national referral mechanism (NRM) and therefore your claim to be a victim of human trafficking or modern slavery was removed from the NRM process.
32. After being transferred to Harmondsworth IRC you stated that you had been a victim of torture and you were seen by a medical practitioner who completed a detention Rule 35 report on 30 March 2023.
33. On 20 April 2023 your legal representatives, TNA Solicitors, wrote to the Home Office and submitted a statement from you dated 27 March 2023 in which you stated that you were not aware that a decision had been made to revoke your refugee status or that a deportation order had been made against you and that the first you knew of this had been when you received the monthly progress report dated 02 March 2023 which stated that you were subject to a deportation order.
34. Your legal representatives stated within their letter dated 20 April 2023 that they had been informed that there had been a decision made by the Home Office on 4 March 2022 to revoke your refugee status and that on 11 April 2023 and again on 17 April 2023 they had requested that the Home Office provide them with a copy of this decision. They further stated that as the decision letter had not been provided to them that it should be considered as having not been served on you and on themselves and they submitted that until this letter is served to you and to themselves you should retain the right to appeal this decision.
35. The decision to revoke your refugee status that your legal representatives have referred to as having been made by the Home Office on 4 March 2022 was in fact incorporated within a notice of decision dated 10 August 2022 and which had been sent to the immigration reporting centre at Lunar House Croydon, to be served on you when you next reported there on 30 August 2022. However, as the Home Office were not able to locate evidence that you had been served with this notice it has been agreed that the decision paperwork should be served afresh.
36. Due to the length of time that has passed since the issuing of the decision paperwork dated 10 August 2023 and that representations have since been received from your legal representatives dated 20 April 2023 as section 120 notice representations raising additional information, the decision notice setting out the reasons for revoking your refugee status and to refuse your protection and human rights claim has been reviewed. However, the decision to revoke your refugee status and to refuse your protection and human rights claim has been maintained.
5. Paragraph 338A of the Immigration Rules states that a person’s grant of asylum under paragraph 334 will be revoked if not renewed if the Secretary of State is satisfied that one of the conditions from paragraph 339 A applies. The paragraph in full reads:
339A. This paragraph applies when the Secretary of State is satisfied that one or more of the following applies:
(i) they have voluntarily re-availed themselves of the protection of the country of nationality;
(ii) having lost their nationality, they have voluntarily re-acquired it;
(iii) they have acquired a new nationality, and enjoy the protection of the country of their new nationality;
(iv) they have voluntarily re-established themselves in the country which they left or outside which they remained owing to a fear of persecution;
(v) they can no longer, because the circumstances in connection with which they have been recognised as a refugee have ceased to exist, continue to refuse to avail themselves of the protection of the country of nationality; or
(vi) being a stateless person with no nationality, they are able, because the circumstances in connection with which they have been recognised as a refugee have ceased to exist, to return to the country of former habitual residence
In considering (v) and (vi), the Secretary of State shall have regard to whether the change of circumstances is of such a significant and non-temporary nature that the refugee’s fear of persecution can no longer be regarded as well-founded.
6. The Secretary of State revoked the Appellants refugee status by reference to paragraph 339 A (v).
7. The UNHCR, to whom the Secretary of State was required to give notice of the intention to revoke the Appellant’s status, in their letter dated the 16 February 2022, expressed the view that the information provided by the Home Office on the changes that have occurred in Algeria did not adequately satisfy the requirements of Article 1C(5) of the Refugee Convention.
8. The rationale of Article 1C(5) deals with situations where circumstances leading to the grant of refugee status have changed, regardless of the individual conduct of the refugee. Any decision must therefore be reached entirely on the basis of whether the individual’s particular circumstances or those of his country of origin/nationality have changed so that international protection is no longer required.
9. The view of the UNHCR is that the current prevailing country situation in Algeria does not warrant the application of Article 1C(5) as there has not been a fundamental and durable change in regard to security.
10. The view of UNHCR is that the information provided to them by the Home Office on the changes that have occurred in Algeria does not adequately satisfy the requirement under Article 1C(5), and that is their view that the additional country information raised in their comments indicates that protection concerns persist in Algeria
11. That view was rejected by the Respondent on the basic it was not considered UNHCR’s comments and representations received were sufficient to overturn the Respondents view.
12. The issue of risk on return to the Appellant was considered by Alison Pargeter (‘the country expert’) in the country report dated 3 November 2023.
13. It was not accepted that the Appellant will be detained on return simply for being a failed asylum seeker.
14. In relation to whether he will be persecuted due to his sexuality the country expert noted the Appellant was granted asylum in the United Kingdom in 2013 on the basis he is a gay man. The country expert noted that whilst homosexuality is not illegal in Algeria engaging in homosexual acts is a punishable offence. Reference is made to Article 338 and other provisions of the Algerian Penal Code, and societal attitudes, before concluding at [2.19] – [2.21]:
2.19. In summary, homosexuals are subjected to severe societal disapproval and stigma, and are soft targets for anyone wishing to harass or attack them. While being homosexual is not in itself illegal, any homosexual or bisexual in Algeria who does not conceal their sexuality is putting themselves at risk of discrimination and persecution, as well as the threat of physical violence. As such, I do not share the Home Office’s assertion in paragraph 66 of its letter dated 25 July 2023 which states, “your fear of persecution is no longer applicable on the basis that there has been a fundamental and non-temporary change in Algeria and therefore you no longer continue to be a category of individual who would face treatment amounting to persecution there.”
2.20. Were MS to return to Algeria and be open about his sexuality, he would be at risk of mockery, harassment, discrimination and potential harm from non-state actors. Were he to wear women’s clothes and makeup, he would certainly draw negative attention to himself, and would likely be subjected to ridicule, hostility and possible harm. While there are some transvestites and transgender individuals in Algeria, including a famous transgender boxer, Imane Khelif, and a transgender social media star, Jad Wahbi, they have suffered abuse and harm. Jad Wahbi describes for example how he was raped and subjected to bullying and sexual abuse from a young age. Algerian society would not generally accept men dressing as women or asserting that they are transgender. Indeed, MS’s account in his Asylum Interview Record of being ridiculed for wearing women’s clothes and make up in public areas is entirely plausible, as are his father’s threats to kill him on account of his behaviour. A family would deem such actions as deeply shameful and humiliating, and would do their utmost to prevent their son from bringing embarrassment and shame in this way.
2.21. If MS chooses to dress in women’s clothing or make up, this would heighten the threat of abuse.
15. If the Appellant was forced to hide his sexuality in a situation where he would otherwise wish to be open about it, as a result of a fear of a credible risk of persecution, he will be entitled to succeed, as been forced to hide a fundamental aspect of a person’s character and personality, to avoid persecution, would infringe the HJ (Iran) principal.
16. In relation to whether the Appellant will be able to get protection from the police authorities due to his sexuality, the country expert finds that were the Appellant to experience persecution at the hands of non-state actors on account of his sexual orientation, he is likely to be dismissed or ignored by the police and would also face been mocked and insulted. It is also not inconceivable either that he could end up being raped or sexually abused by the police themselves [3.3].
17. In relation to whether the Appellant could reasonably relocate in Algeria and whether it will be unduly harsh for him to do so, whilst this was theoretically possible, concerns are recorded in relation to ability to obtain employment, the reaction if he manifested his sexuality, the general perception of the Appellant as a person suffering from mental health problems, exclusion from society, difficulty in being able to enter the job market, lack of adequate social protection system, and lack of housing, leading to it being concluded at [4.18] of the report
4.18. As such, MS could well end up destitute and living on the streets. His mental health problems would make him particularly vulnerable in this respect. The El-Moudjahid news site observed in October 2021, “The mentally ill person, a victim of abandonment and marginalisation, often finds himself left to his sad fate, namely that of the street. …. The streets of the large towns recount these people’s cries of distress and the humiliation they are subjected to every day…” In 2014, Le Jeune Independent news site reported on how the mentally ill make up a significant portion of those living on the streets of the capital, noting, “Abandoned by their families, deprived of care and neglected, some 2,500 mentally ill people roam the streets of Algiers in the freezing cold.”
18. In relation to whether he could access appropriate treatment for his mental health in Algeria, the country expert, for the reasons set out at section 5 of the report, concludes that given the strains on the mental health systems and mismatch between the number of people requiring treatment and resources available, it is highly unlikely the Appellant will be able to access a proper standard of care and treatment. Given the strong reliance on in-patient care education in Algeria was also said to be highly unlikely that he will be able to access community-based care.
19. In relation to a person with the Appellant’s protected characteristics I find the evidence shows there has been no material change in Algeria from the time when he was initially granted refugee status to now. It is also clear that there is no effective sufficiency of protection available to him to the Horvath standard and that if he sought the protection of the authorities there is a real risk that he will suffer real harm from some members of the police force. I find a holistic assessment of the evidence shows there is sufficient to justify the maintaining of the grant of international protection.
20. It is also the view of the country expert, which was not contested before me, that there is no reasonable internal flight option available to the Appellant in Algeria when considering all relevant aspects of the evidence holistically.
21. Reference is made by the country expert to the Appellant’s mental health needs. These are assessed in a medicolegal report by Dr Thelma Thomas dated 3 August 2023.
22. In relation to his personal history as recorded by Dr Thomas, it is written:
1.5 At the start of the interview on 4/5/2003 MS asked if he could give me a summary of his history without retelling the details of the ill-treatment he had experienced. He referred me to the information he had given in his witness statement (given on 27/3/23). In line with the IP advice referred to above, I agreed that I would not ask detailed questions as I understood how distressing this might be. I explained that I would need to ask some questions related to his past experiences and reassured him that I would keep these to the minimum I felt was necessary and I would not probe unnecessarily.
1.6 I have combined the information from the two meetings and the phone call I had with MS to provide a chronological account in this report. The information was not all provided in chronological order as MS sometimes moved from one stage of his life to another when telling me his history.
1.7 From the outset on 4/5/2023 MS appeared to be on edge, speaking quite quickly and initiating the discussion as described above. He was fiddling with items on the desk and appeared slightly agitated despite engaging straight away and making good eye contact. As the interview progressed, MS appeared increasingly restless. He started to fiddle with the telephone and his level of concentration dropped. I established that he had not had his daily dose of methadone before he came to the interview and advised that he should attend Health Care to sort this out before we continued the interview. After trying to telephone Health Care he left and later informed the Medical Justice case worker that he did not feel well enough to continue the interview which was therefore adjourned.
1.8 When we reconvened on 8/5/2023 MS maintained his concentration for most of the scarring examination although towards the end of the scarring examination he said he felt tired and he became easily distracted and less able to focus on the examination. Because of this I suggested we arrange a telephone interview to complete the mental health examination.
1.9 When I called MS for the telephone interview we were initially unable to proceed because it was apparent that he was not in a private space. It took about half an hour for MS to make his way to a private space and when he explained the delay it was apparent that he had had several distractions on his way which he had felt he needed to attend to.
1.10 MS was born in Algeria in, he said, “the bloody 90s”. He referred to the abuse he was subjected to by his father and others. Later in the interview MS referred specifically to an episode when his father hit him on the leg with a broken table leg which had a screw on the end, causing a serious injury to his knee.
1.11 MS did not refer much to his mother and siblings though he did later say that his father was “still beating her” (referring to his mother). MS remains in touch with his mother and she calls him when she can though she is scared. (I understood this to refer to her being scared because of his father’s likely disapproval of her calls.)
1.12 MS said that his father did not accept his sexuality (MS is a gay man). MS said that he was never happy as a child. He liked to play with girls and would dress up in his sister’s clothes for which his father would beat him. His father would chain him to a wall and throw “rocks” at him. (While talking about this MS looked more agitated, moving his hands and picking things from the desk. He picked up what he identified as a discarded tag and commented “This was the type they gave to me”. Soon after this the first interview was terminated as described above.)
1.13 MS said that he was “treated like a man” and “didn’t want to be like a man”. He referred to suffering from “trauma in the head, anxiety, depression” after which he quietly said “and now immigration wants to deport me to him”.
1.14 I asked MS what he knew as a child about being gay. He said that he only knew it as something said to be “dangerous”. I asked about his education. He said that he “didn’t go to school much”. He referred to being bullied with other pupils saying things like “You act like a girl”. He remembers that he “hid behind trees or in toilets.” I asked him later about his literacy level. He said he could read a little in English but finds writing difficult. Although he speaks a little Arabic he described his first language to be a local language which, he said, was like a mix of Arabic and French.
1.15 MS stated that he came to the UK with “a valid visa” and was granted refugee status. He was living in Brighton where he fell in love with a man who turned out to be part of a drug gang through whom MS became involved with drugs. When MS became addicted to drugs, he was made to work for the gang and was physically and sexually abused by them. He said that he tried to run away and then he would fund his drug habit by committing crimes, including the street robbery for which he was convicted. During his time working for the gang MS was involved in a fight in which his cheekbone was broken. He was admitted to hospital where he was due to have a plate inserted but he “ran away”. He told me that he did this because of his drug habit, there being no methadone cover available to him in hospital.
1.16 Although MS did not elaborate on the ill-treatment when he first told me about the gang, he gave me some more information when talking about his physical health. He referred to being raped by an older member of the gang. He then, when I asked directly, confirmed that he had also been raped as a child. I did not ask further about his history of sexual assaults.
1.17 MS told me that he could not return to Algeria because he is gay. He said that his father would kill him because of his sexuality and because of his “refusal to be a terrorist”. (In his witness statement MS refers to his father threatening him while trying to involve him in terrorist activities.)
1.18 I asked MS about the treatment and support he had had for his mental health in prison and the IRC, in addition to the methadone reduction programmes. He said that he has recently been working with “Dr Sheila” and that he had found this helpful though it focuses only on his drug dependency. When I asked him later about the treatment he was having he said that it seemed to be all about the medication – the antidepressant Mirtazapine and his methadone and did not include any non-pharmacological therapy.
1.19 I asked MS why he had delayed reporting his experiences with the drug gang until last year. He said that he had tried to tell officers about it but “no one took any notice”. He also said that it was not until he had come off drugs that his brain felt clear and he was more able to talk about his bad experiences. I asked whether he had had any recent contact with the gang and he said that he had seen one of them in a prison but that this was all. He said he felt safe from them now and “I will avoid them”.
1.20 I asked MS about his previous mental health history. He said that his mental health had not been good in Algeria due to the childhood abuse. It had started to improve in the UK before he became involved with the drug gang. He described his mental health as poor in prison and worsening since he came into the IRC, which he attributed to the threat of deportation, saying how scared he felt.
1.21 MS told me that he wanted his mental health condition diagnosed so that he could be treated. He said that he was “tired of no one telling me”. He said that he “knew” he had “Trauma, Anxiety and PTSD”.
23. Having undertaken a detailed analysis of a number of issues Dr Thomas set out her summary in section 6 of the report in the following terms:
6. SUMMARY
6.1 MS is a 27 year old Algerian man who reports being physically and sexually abused by his father and his father’s friends. MS attributes this extreme ill treatment to his father having realised that MS was gay.
6.2 MS said that his father tried to involve him in “terrorist activities” and because of this and the other ill treatment MS came to the UK in 2013 and was granted asylum.
6.3 MS reported that he started a relationship with a man he had met who turned out to be part of a drugs gang. This man introduced MS to drugs and once he became addicted the gang forced him to work for them. MS reported being the victim of both physical and sexual abuse while working for the gang. He said that he tried to escape but could not because of his dependence on the drugs which they supplied.
6.4 MS fears for his life if he returns to Algeria where his father still lives.
6.5 I spoke to MS on three occasions, twice in person in the IRC and once on the telephone. When interviewing him in the IRC, MS was restless; he was easily distracted and had difficulty maintaining his concentration for the long period required for a full assessment.
6.6 MS said that his mental health had not been good in Algeria. He attributed this to his childhood abuse. His health improved when he came to the UK and it then deteriorated when he became involved with the drug gang. He said that his mental health was poor in prison and has worsened since he has been in the IRC.
6.7 During his time in prison and IRC MS has been treated by the Substance Use Service.
6.8 On 30/3/2023 the IRC GP concluded in the Rule 35 Report “He is suffering with depression, nightmares/insomnia, flashbacks and anxiety. Since being detained his condition has worsened and he has started medication for depression. My opinion is that continued detention will lead to deterioration in his mental health due to the history and the nature of being detained with an unknown status.”
6.9 MS has a number of physical symptoms which will need reassessment including loss of taste and smell, jaw problems, rectal bleeding, headaches, dizziness and backache.
6.10 MS has multiple scars which are described in the report. Twenty one scars are attributed to ill treatment sustained either in childhood or while working for the drug gang in the UK. Three of these are Typical and three Highly Consistent with the attributions given. MS is unable to recall which of the remaining scars attributed to violence were sustained in childhood and which were sustained when he was with the drug gang. Each of these fifteen scars is compatible with a non-accidental injury.
6.11 My opinion is that MS’s overall pattern of scarring is Typical of a pattern resulting from a history of recurrent ill treatment as described by MS.
6.12 MS has symptoms of Depression plus anxiety and trauma related symptoms. He has difficulty sleeping and sometimes hears voices in his head. He denied current thoughts of self-harm or suicide though he referred to having had these in the past.
6.13 While I consider that MS’s risk of self-harm or suicide was low when I spoke with him, the risk will increase if there are changes in his situation, especially if there is a further removal attempt.
6.14 Using the diagnostic criteria of ICD-11 it is my opinion that MS is suffering from Depression and he has significant trauma related symptoms and may have PTSD. He also has Substance use disorder. MS needs to have a full specialist assessment, ideally in a community setting, to confirm his diagnoses and to formulate a management plan.
6.15 In my opinion MS’s psychological symptoms are Highly consistent with the history he gives of ill-treatment in his childhood and as an adult. I have discussed the possible interactions of his trauma related symptoms with other factors in his history.
6.16 I agree with the IRC GP that MS’s mental health is likely to worsen the longer he stays in detention.
6.17 While I consider that MS is fit to answer questions about his asylum claim, this should take place in a non-threatening manner, with attention to the potential risk of re- traumatisation.
6.18 As a former victim of modern slavery MS is vulnerable to re-trafficking and his history of drug dependency and mental health problems add to this risk.
6.19 Until MS’s mental health is stable he cannot, in my opinion, be deemed fit to fly.
6.20 I did not find any evidence which indicated that MS might be fabricating or exaggerating the account he gave to me which was in accordance with the clinical findings and the information in the medical records.
6.21 I concluded that MS’s account to me and the accompanying clinical findings were Typical of those which might be found in someone who has been subjected to serious violence for periods of his life.
24. I find having considered the evidence as a whole that there is credible evidence MS has severe mental health issues which cannot be properly treated in Algeria which give rise to realistic prospects of a further decline in his mental health condition and serious prospects which might, realistically, increase the risk of suicide.
25. In any event, the core finding I make is that the Secretary of State has not discharged the burden of proof upon her to the required standard to show that the conditions that warranted the grant of refugee status to the Appellant previously have changed to the extent that he is no longer entitled to a grant of international protection.
26. On that basis the Appellant is entitled to rely on an exemption to the order for his deportation from the United Kingdom, as to remove him will put the United Kingdom in breach of its obligations under the Refugee Convention. On that basis I allowed the appeal.
Notice of Decision
27. Appeal allowed.

C J Hanson

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

27 May 2025