Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-005387

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/02096/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 23rd of April 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE C LANE
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALIS

Between

J K
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Ahmed, Counsel
For the Respondent: Miss Newton, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Manchester Civil Justice Centre on 25 March 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, [the appellant] (and/or any member of his family, expert, witness or other person the Tribunal considers should not be identified) is granted anonymity.

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 his asylum and human rights claims.

2. The Appellant, aged nineteen years of age, is a citizen of Albania. He left Albania on 26 September 2022 and travelled through various countries before entering the United Kingdom on 29 October 2022. He claimed asylum on 3 November 2022 and his claim was refused by the Respondent on 24 November 2023. The Appellant appealed against that decision.

3. The Appellant’s claim is that his father went to work in Greece shortly before he was born and returned to Albania when the Appellant was around five or six years of age. The Appellant’s father built a house on a piece of land but a neighbour objected because the house had been built on part of his land. His father had to demolish part of the house and was forced to borrow money from loan sharks to carry out further works.

4. Around June 2022 (ten years later) the Appellant claimed the loan sharks sought repayment of the loan. His father had been unable to repay the loan as he was not working. He had been on his way home from school with friends when a black Mercedes stopped nearby and two men got out. The men stated they were friends with his father and then left. The Appellant told his father about the meeting and it was then his father explained that he owed money to loan sharks. His father told him not to worry.

5. At the beginning of September 2022, the Appellant, during a school break, was again approached by one of the men. The male stated that he was checking up on him and left without anything further happening. The Appellant stated that he was beginning to get scared.

6. Some 5 or 6 days later a black Mercedes stopped and the Appellant was told to get into the car. The Appellant initially refused but the men said they were armed so he did as he was told. He was driven to an abandoned factory about 30 or 40 minutes away. At the factory the Appellant was threatened that if his father did not repay the money the Appellant would be forced to grow drugs for them. The men also stated that the Appellant should not tell the police as they would know if he did and they would kill the him. The men then drove off and the Appellant walked home. Despite his father’s assurances the Appellant decided he was not safe in Albania. The Appellant stopped attending school, applied for a passport and left with money his mother had given him.

7. The Respondent rejected the Appellant’s account that either he or his father had suffered problems with loan sharks or that he was the potential victim of trafficking because she did not find it either plausible or credible that loan sharks would have waited so long before seeking to recover or enforce the loan.

8. The Appellant appealed against the respondent’s decision. The appeal was heard by a First-tier Tribunal Judge on 4 September 2024. The Appellant, accompanied by a social worker, gave oral evidence before the Judge.

9. The Judge rejected his claim he was a member of a particular social group on the basis of the background reports there was adequacy and willingness to protect young men in Albania and that internal relocation to Tirana was an option open to the Appellant. The Judge further rejected the Appellant’s claim he had been trafficked finding that even on his version of events the threat was not to make him work for them but the taking of him was to be a threat towards the father if he did not repay the loan.

10. The Judge made the following credibility findings about his claim:

i. It was not credible the loan sharks would have waited ten years to take action against the Appellant or his family given he had an older sister who would be a more likely victim for trafficking and exploitation.

ii. It lacked credibility (a) the family had not been subjected to pressure earlier and (b) if the claim was credible that his sister would be continuing her studies elsewhere.

iii. It was not credible that after ten years the loan sharks did not know the family’s financial circumstances or that the father was not working and had no means of repaying the loan, and as such the loan sharks would merely threaten to take the appellant. He found the loan sharks would have taken the Appellant and force him to work for them.

iv. It was not credible that the daughter of the family , the sister of the appellant, would not have been similarly at risk of becoming a victim of trafficking but nevertheless continued her education given the financial circumstances of the family.

11. The Judge considered internal relocation and found this would be possible. He dismissed the appeal on Convention, article 3 and 8 ECHR grounds, in a decision promulgated on 26 September 2024.

12. The Appellant sought permission to appeal the Judge’s decision on three grounds: firstly, the Judge erred when assessing the credibility of the Appellant; secondly, the Judge was wrong to find that the Appellant could not be found to be a member of a PSG and thirdly, the Judge erred when applying the test in which asylum/protection claims are assessed.

13. Permission was granted in the First-tier Tribunal on the following basis:

“2. It is not arguable that the judge materially erred by failing to note the Appellant’s account that he was not in contact with his sister; the judge notes precisely that at paragraph 50.

3. It is however arguable that the judge materially erred in law in their consideration of the credibility of the Appellant’s account by engaging in speculation as to the likely actions of criminals (loan sharks) as a matter of plausibility, without the support or reference to evidence to support the judge’s view of what would be plausible in the circumstances described by the Appellant and which in any event is a unreliable indicator of credibility relative to such factors as consistency, including with background evidence, or level of detail.

4. It is arguable that there is a material inadequacy of reasoning for the judge’s finding that the Appellant would not be a member of a particular social group in Albania.

5. It is not arguable that the judge misdirected themselves in relation to the applicable standard of proof.

6. Permission is therefore granted on some grounds and refused on others.”

14. Mr Ahmed submitted the Judge erred by focussing too much on the Appellant’s sister rather than the Appellant himself. He drew our attention in particular to paragraphs [49], [50], [51], [53] and [59] where he submitted the Judge concentrated on the Appellant’s sister rather than the Appellant. Mr Ahmed submitted that by focusing on the sister the Judge erred in law.

15. Mr Ahmed further submitted the Judge erred in how he dealt with the question of trafficking in paragraph [54] There was no explanation for the adverse finding in this paragraph and the finding at paragraph [55] the Appellant was not a member of a particular social group ignored the evidence referred to in the skeleton argument young men could be a member of a particular social group and failed to not look at the case law of TD and AD in a structured way.

16. The Judge’s assessment of internal relocation was flawed as it was infected by the flawed credibility findings and because the Judge had not looked at this issue in the structured manner suggested in TD and AD.

17. Ms Newton submitted the Judge was entitled to consider the Appellant’s credibility through the prism of the family. The Judge made the point that family had not been contacted sooner and referred to the fact it was not credible the sister would not have been targeted or that the loan sharks would not be aware of the family finances or that they waited so long. The Judge made this point in paragraph [51] and that finding was open to the Judge. At paragraph [53] the Judge looked at the overall situation and she submitted all those findings were open to him. The Judge had acknowledged a threat made but concluded that on the facts he was not a member of a particular social group for the reasons given. The case law was considered by the Judge and his reasons between [40] and [43] were open to him.

Discussion and Analysis

18. Having considered the respective submissions and the documents, we concluded there was no error of law as we were satisfied that the Judge’s finding that internal relocation was possible was not wrong in law. Whilst we had some concerns on the interest shown by the Judge about the Appellant’s sister this was not material to the overall decision because firstly the Judge placed significant weight on the ten year period between the loan being taken out and first contact with anyone about the debt and secondly, and more importantly, because the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that internal relocation was either unduly harsh or unreasonable.

19. Mr Ahmed had submitted that the Judge’s consideration on internal location was infected by the errors he had referred to and argued the Judge had not followed the Respondent’s own COI or considered the Appellant’s age, education and family. We remind ourselves that TD and AD was a case involving women and it was important for us to remember we were dealing with a male rather than a female.

20. Paragraph [30] of Counsel’s skeleton argument made it clear apartments were available to male victims. Reliance had been placed on the evidence of Dr Eldira but his evidence did not undermine this but simply raised some doubts about it. The COI clearly says that accommodation is rented to male victims for up to one year.

21. The Judge considered the Appellant’s evidence about what had happened and rejected his evidence with reasons and whilst some of those reasons were about the sister the Judge also made it abundantly clear in reaching his decision the fact no action had been taken against any member of the family, including the father and sister, for ten years was a relevant factor in his determination.

22. We find paragraph [30] of the skeleton argument, adopted by Mr Ahmed, was neutral on what was available for males and we reminded ourselves it was for the Appellant to persuade the Judge that internal relocation would be unduly harsh or unreasonable. The Judge was aware of his age and circumstances. He made it clear in his decision that he had taken all matters into account and it is trite law that the Judge does not have to refer to every single matter when giving a decision.

23. We are satisfied it can be implied from his findings that the Judge believed there was financial support available from the father given the Appellant’s evidence that his father paid for his sister to study and his father had experienced no problems for over ten years.

24. Having concluded there was no error in respect of the Judge’s internal relocation assessment we concluded that all the remaining grounds fell aside as internal relocation was an integral part of the decision because even if the Appellant had demonstrated he was a potential refugee he still had to demonstrate that internal relocation was unduly harsh or unreasonable and he not done so.

Notice of Decision

25. The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve a material error on a point of law requiring it to be set aside. The decision to dismiss the appeal stands.

Anonymity Order

The Anonymity Order previously made is continued.

Signed: Judge S P Alis

Deputy-Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber