Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2024-005192
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/60484/2023
LP/04388/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 12th March 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KAMARA

Between

JC
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr A Gilbert, counsel instructed by Thompson & Co Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr J Nappey, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 10 March 2026

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
Introduction
1. Following an error of law hearing which took place on 5 January 2026, the First-tier Tribunal decision dismissing the appellant’s protection appeal was set aside and the appeal was retained in the Upper Tribunal for remaking.
Anonymity
2. I have continued the anonymity order previously made by the First-Tier Tribunal. I have considered the public interest in open justice but conclude that it is outweighed by the importance of facilitating the discharge of the United Kingdom’s obligations to those claiming international protection because of the need for confidentiality.
Factual Background
3. The appellant is a national of Albania now aged twenty-one. He left Albania during September 2021, entered the United Kingdom clandestinely on 12 April 2022 and applied for asylum on the day of his arrival. The basis of that claim was that the appellant’s father was facing threats from a money lender over an unpaid loan he had taken out. The appellant’s father was disabled following a construction accident which prevented him from working and left the family impecunious. The appellant’s brothers had already fled Albania after being attacked and receiving threats from the same money lenders. Having been advised by his father to leave, the appellant did so. He was informed by the person who arranged his departure that he would have to work for them to pay for the cost of his trip as well as to repay his father’s loan. The appellant was forced to work in a cannabis farm in Lille, where he was ill-treated until he escaped. He fears that if returned to Albania he will be at risk from his traffickers as well as the money lenders. Since arriving in the United Kingdom, his father has continued to be pressured by the money lenders, albeit he has refused to go into detail. The appellant’s father did not report the lenders to the police owing to their power as well as police corruption.
4. By way of a letter dated 25 October 2023, the respondent refused the appellant’s protection claim. The appellant’s name, age, nationality, the facts of his case and claim to have been trafficked from Albania to France and to have been forced to work in a cannabis house was accepted. The respondent further accepted that the appellant’s behaviour did not engage Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004. Nonetheless, it was not accepted that there was a refugee Convention reason nor that the appellant’s fear of persecution was well-founded. The respondent concluded that in general, protection is available in Albania, that males were not at high risk of re-trafficking and that the appellant could internally relocate within Albania should he not wish to return to his home city.
The remaking hearing
5. The matter comes before the Upper Tribunal to re-make the decision of the First-tier Tribunal to do so. A bundle was submitted by the appellant containing the core documents in the appeal.
6. The hearing was attended by representatives for both parties as above. The appeal proceeded by submissions only. Both representatives made succinct submissions, and the conclusions below reflect those arguments and submissions where necessary. It suffices to say that Mr Nappey relied upon the decision letter dated 25 October 2023 as well as the respondent’s review dated 8 March 2024. He placed reliance on two paragraphs of the decision of the ECtHR in AD and Others v Sweden (Application 22283/21), heard 7 May 2024.
7. At the end of the hearing, I reserved my decision.

Discussion
8. To succeed in an appeal on asylum grounds, the appellant must show a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason (race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, political opinion). The burden of proof rests on the appellant.
9. As the asylum claim was made before 28 June 2022, the provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 do not apply. Therefore, the lower standard of proof applies to all elements of his claim.
10. There is no challenge to the credibility of the appellant’s claim which he has given in his Statement of Evidence Form dated 26 June 2023, his witness statement dated 27 June 2023, his asylum interview which took place on 10 August 2023 as well as in the witness statement dated 8 January 2024 which was produced for the hearing before the First-tier Tribunal.
11. The principal matters in dispute remain the same as those identified in the decision letter and are:
i. whether the appellant’s status as a victim of trafficking puts the appellant in the category of Particular Social Group and as such constitutes a convention reason for the appellant to fear persecution.
ii. Whether the appellant is at risk on return to Albania.
iii. whether the appellant could access sufficient state protection in Albania.
iv. Whether the appellant could relocate to other parts of Albania.
v. Whether the appellant is entitled to humanitarian protection, Article 2 or Article 3 protection.
vi. Whether the appellant’s removal would disproportionately interfere with Article 8 ECHR. In other words, whether there are significant obstacles to his reintegration to Albania, or whether removal would be disproportionate outside the Immigration Rules.
Convention Reason
12. The respondent accepts that male victims of trafficking have an immutable characteristic, as stated in the July 2024 CPIN on Human trafficking at 2.1.3:
Men who are trafficked are not likely to form a PSG. Although they have an immutable characteristic – the experience of having been trafficked – they do not have a distinct identity within Albanian society.
13. While Mr Nappey argued for a conjunctive rather than disjunctive approach to the issue, the latter applies in a pre-NABA case such as this appeal. In this, I am guided by DH (Particular social group: mental health) Afghanistan [2020] UKUT 223 (IAC), which states, at [72] that Article 10(1)(d) of the Qualification Directive (Particular Social Group) ‘should be interpreted by replacing the word “and” between Article 10(1)(d)(i) and (ii) with the word “or,” creating an alternative test rather than a cumulative test.’
14. I further rely on Fornah [2006] UKHL 46 at [46]:
In Applicant S v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, paras 67-69 McHugh J was at pains to emphasise that it was a mistake to say that a particular social group does not exist unless it is always perceived as such by the society in which it exists. He said that it was not necessary that society itself must recognise the particular social group as a group that is set apart from the rest of that society, or that the persecutor or persecutors must actually perceive the group as constituting a particular social group. As he put it in para 69:
"It is enough that the persecutor or persecutors single out the asylum-seeker for being a member of a class whose members possess a 'uniting' feature or attribute, and the persons in that class are cognisable objectively as a particular social group."
15. Thus, applying the disjunctive test, the appellant is a member of a particular social group as a male victim of trafficking simply by sharing an innate characteristic. Given the background evidence that victims of trafficking are targeted in Albania, it is reasonably likely that his persecutors would identify him as having an immutable characteristic. There is no requirement for the appellant to additionally show that male victims of trafficking have a distinct identity in Albania.
Risk on return
16. There is ample background evidence and legal authority for the proposition that the appellant would be identified on his return as a victim of trafficking. The CPIN Albania: Human Trafficking, version 14.0 February 2023 makes the point at 14.3.1 and 14.3.5:
‘… you can’t anonymously live in Albania …or cultural reasons, the ways in which people situate you socially. You encounter somebody and you meet somebody, and any social contact you make you are defined as a person through where you are from and who your family is. It is almost a ritual; it is a ritual rhetoric…Society is organised patrilineally. This means that you can relate always somebody through their patrilineage. “Who’s your father?” Mother’s family now matters as well, but you are always judged in terms of whether you are from a good or bad family through your parents’ lineages.”
There is no anonymous living such as in Europe’s large cities. What chance do you have to reintegrate into a society, without your family, where everything is reliant on family? Just being given a rented flat in a city without pre-existing social contacts would make you very conspicuous and at-tract attention and suspicion...”
Albania is very small and it is easy for the traffickers to find what they’re looking for.… it would be easy to be located and added that ‘We are a very small country, we all know each other... It might not be the same trafficker, but someone from within the same network;
17. Furthermore, the same was said in BF (Tirana - gay men) Albania CG [2019] UKUT 93 (IAC),
a person's whereabouts may become known in Tirana by word of mouth. Albania is a relatively small country and we accept as entirely plausible that a person might be traced via family or other connections being made on enquiry in Tirana.
18. BF (Tirana) was cited with approval in R (on the Application of H) [2023] EWHC 2758 (Admin) at [36]
In AM and BM (Trafficked women) Albania CG [2010] UKUT 80 (IAC) the UT concluded that Albania is a country in which internal relocation is problematical for a victim of trafficking and that internal relocation was unlikely to be effective for most victims of trafficking who held a well-founded fear of persecution. In the later case of BF (Tirana - gay men) Albania CG [2019] UKUT 93 (IAC) it was accepted that evidence of a person's whereabouts may become known in Tirana by word of mouth because Albania is a relatively small country, and it was entirely plausible that a person might be traced via family or other connections.
19. I have carefully considered Mr Nappey’s submission that the appellant would no longer be of interest to the money lenders because of the passage of time. That submission is not supported by the facts. The appellant’s unchallenged evidence was that the money lenders continued to target his father in the intervening years. In addition, the appellant also has issues with the people traffickers who took him to France for forced labour, retained his passport and to whom he owes the cost of his travel.
20. The respondent’s CPIN Albania: Human Trafficking, version 16.0 July 2024 confirms in several places that victims of trafficking faces a real risk of serious harm by way of re-trafficking at the hands of an OCG. For instance, at 8.1.11-8.1.12, the following is stated:
Traffickers often use debt bondage… tricked into travelling to Britain. UK-based Albanian-origin organised crime networks have strengthening ties to impoverished rural areas of Albania and are Case No. UI-2024-005192 focused on "luring young Albanian men to the UK to work and engage in illegal activities" - cannabis farming in particular… (8.1.11-8.1.12)
Most victims of trafficking are trafficked by … those with links to criminal networks’ (3.1.2-3.1.3)
21. The previous CPIN Albania: Human Trafficking, version 14.0 February 2023 makes the same points.
22. The background material also refers to the crimes including violence and threats committed by informal money lenders or loan sharks.
23. Given the appellant’s particular circumstances and the general situation as shown in the background material, I accept that the appellant remains at a real risk of harm both owing to his father’s unpaid loan as well as having escaped from his traffickers.
Internal relocation
24. Given the foregoing evidence along with my acceptance that the appellant is at risk of harm throughout Albania owing to the country’s small size and the difficulty of remaining anonymous, the appellant cannot reasonably be expected to relocate to avoid those he fears. The appellant does not have family in Albania who can assist him financially. His father’s economic issues are central to his claim and his only other relative is an uncle who has fallen out with the appellant’s family unit. The appellant’s likely isolation would make him vulnerable to exploitation from his previous traffickers or another such group. Indeed, the evidence adduced, including at page 96 of the Fact-finding Mission, addresses the difficulty of long-term integration for victims of trafficking and the prevalence of exploitative working conditions. Accordingly, internal relocation would not be viable alternative for the appellant.
Sufficiency of protection
25. The Secretary of State contends that Albania has a functioning police force capable of offering adequate protection and in general, the state is willing and able to provide effective protection to male victims of trafficking.   The second point made is that the appellant, and indeed his father, failed to avail himself of the protection of the Albanian authorities in that he did not approach the police for assistance whilst he was in Albania. 
26. It is not in dispute that in assessing whether sufficient protection is available, it is not necessary for a state to eliminate all risk and that a more practical test applies.   The point of dispute between the representatives is whether the Albanian authorities have done enough to tackle organised crime. The respondent’s view is that the Albanian authorities have made progress in addressing corruption and in dealing with organised crimes.  
27. In terms of the systems of protection in place in Albania, Version 16.0 of the Albania: Human trafficking CPIN July 2024 at 10.1.1 states that the Albanian government does not ‘fully meet’ even the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking. At 3.1.1, it is confirmed that Albania is primarily a source country for victims of trafficking. The 2023 CPIN of the same name makes much the same points as does the CPIN Actors of Protection, version 2.0 of 8 December 2022 which noted at 5.3.2 the criminal connections which ’often influenced law enforcement.’ In the latter report, corruption in Albania was described as ‘pervasive.’
28. The respondent’s own evidence does not support the contention that the Albanian authorities are willing and able to provide protection. Indeed, the CPIN Actors of Protection 2025 indicates that corruption remains a problem, notwithstanding the efforts being made to combat it. Mr Nappey did not draw my attention to any evidence postdating the decision and the respondent’s review which showed that there were any effective avenues of redress against insufficient protection.
29. Mr Nappey relied on paragraphs 70 and 71 of AD v Sweden
Nevertheless, the Court also recognises that Albania, a member of the Council of Europe and a Contracting State to the Convention, has made concerted efforts to address these issues. The reports quoted above describe several reforms which have been introduced and measures taken to improve the capability and integrity of the law enforcement authorities. The reports also note that, although some problems remain, progress has been made. For example, specialised bodies working against corruption and organised crime have been set up and are operational, vetting processes for judges and prosecutors are ongoing, regular police operations against criminal organisations are carried out and there are examples of investigations, arrests and convictions in cases relating to corruption and to organised crime (see, in particular, paragraphs 39 and 41-44 above).
In the light of these recent reports, which postdate the decisions in the domestic proceedings, the Court considers that the Albanian authorities’ capacity to protect their people cannot be regarded as insufficient for the general public in Albania. Nor can it be regarded as generally insufficient for all persons who are targeted by criminal organisations (compare J.K. and Others v. Sweden, cited above, § 121).
30. As Mr Gilbert rightly pointed out, the facts regarding the unsuccessful applicants in AD v Sweden were completely different to those of the appellant.
31. Those facts included that the main applicant was a police officer whose daughter was trafficked, that the applicant in AD v Sweden was shown to have good connections within the Albanian judicial system, considerable contacts with the police and prosecutors and where it had been shown that there was no lack of will or ability on behalf of the Albanian authorities to assist him and his family. The country evidence referred to at [39] of the judgment was less extensive than that relied upon by the appellant in this case. As for the finding that there is a sufficiency of protection for the general public, I am not satisfied that this would extends to the appellant’s circumstances which include the existence of ongoing debt and threats from the money lenders.
32. I have considered the facts of the appellant’s case against the backdrop of the country conditions, including that the traffickers told the appellant they would be able to track him down using his passport and phone which they kept. Furthermore, that corruption remains a major issue in Albania is a feature of all the reports. I therefore accept, on the lower standard, that the implementation gap referred to in the most recent reports remains in relation to victims of trafficking. Furthermore, there are several references in the reports to a reluctance to accept that there is such a thing as a male victim of trafficking.  In the circumstances of the appellant it is therefore accepted there would not be a sufficiency of protection for him if returned to Albania.   
33. The appellant has therefore discharged the burden of establishing that he is entitled to the protection of the 1951 Convention.
Humanitarian Protection
34. As I have allowed the appeal under the refugee convention, it follows that I must dismiss the appellant’s claim for Humanitarian Protection.
Article 8 ECHR
35. As the appellant has made out his claim to be a refugee, it is unnecessary to spend much time on considering whether there would be very significant obstacles to his reintegration in Albania as this element of the appeal stands or falls with the decision on the protection claim. I accept that the situation he would encounter with being at risk of being re-trafficked, the lack of family support and the risk posed by the money lenders would, on balance, amount to very significant obstacles to his reintegration.
Notice of Decision
The appeal is allowed on asylum grounds and human rights grounds (Article 8).

T Kamara

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

11 March 2026

TO THE RESPONDENT
FEE AWARD
No fee is paid or payable and therefore there can be no fee award.

T Kamara

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

11 March 2026

NOTIFICATION OF APPEAL RIGHTS

1. A person seeking permission to appeal against this decision must make a written application to the Upper Tribunal. Any such application must be received by the Upper Tribunal within the appropriate period after this decision was sent to the person making the application. The appropriate period varies, as follows, according to the location of the individual and the way in which the Upper Tribunal’s decision was sent:

2. Where the person who appealed to the First-tier Tribunal is in the United Kingdom at the time that the application for permission to appeal is made, and is not in detention under the Immigration Acts, the appropriate period is 12 working days (10 working days, if the notice of decision is sent electronically).

3. Where the person making the application is in detention under the Immigration Acts, the appropriate period is 7 working days (5 working days, if the notice of decision is sent electronically).

4. Where the person who appealed to the First-tier Tribunal is outside the United Kingdom at the time that the application for permission to appeal is made, the appropriate period is 38 days (10 working days, if the notice of decision is sent electronically).

5. A “working day” means any day except a Saturday or a Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday or a bank holiday.

6. The date when the decision is “sent’ is that appearing on the covering letter or covering email