Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-000068

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/55587/2023
LP/02656/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
1st July 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GREY
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SEELHOFF

Between

EM
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms Radford, Counsel instructed by BHT Sussex
For the Respondent: Mr Hulme, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 13 June 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant, and the country expert are 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 or the country expert. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant is a national of Albania. In a decision issued the 7th April 2025 this panel found that there was an error of law in a decision of a First-tier Tribunal Judge dismissing the appeal. We preserved the factual findings of the First-tier judge but held that the findings as to risk on return needed to be remade, which we do in this decision.
Background
2. The Appellant had a difficult relationship with his parents. His grandmother supported him in pursuing a sporting career, and then to leave Albania once he was unable to take that further. Once he was in the UK the Appellant needed to find money to send to his grandmother to pay for medical treatment she needed. The Appellant borrowed money from an Albanian Criminal Organisation (‘ACO’) to send to his grandmother. It is accepted that the ACO subsequently decided they wanted the Appellant to work for them and when he avoided them, members of the gang visited his grandmother in Albania in 2022 after which he agreed to undertake criminal activities for them. The Appellant was detained by the police in 2023 and essentially liberated from the control of members of the ACO. The Appellant received further threats on social media in the UK which he reported to the police. The Appellant’s parents subsequently disappeared in Albania. In November 2023 there was an incident where guns were fired at the Appellant’s grandmother’s house.
3. Credibility is not in issue, with the Respondent having accepted that much of the account was truthful and with the First-tier Judge having made positive credibility findings.
The Hearing
4. At the outset of the hearing we reviewed the evidence and the issues which we would need to determine.
5. The parties agreed that the Appellant should be treated as a vulnerable person and that adjustments should be made for his benefit in line with recommendations contained in a psychologist’s report.
6. Mr Hulme confirmed that whilst the Respondent did not accept that it had been the ACO which had attacked the Appellant’s grandmother’s home in November 2023, it was accepted that his grandmother had been a target of the gang in 2022 when they were trying to force the Appellant to work for them.
7. The Appellant was called to give evidence and adopted the evidence of a consolidated statement filed in advance of the reconsideration hearing. He was cross examined by Mr Hulme on a number of topics but given additional breaks to allow for his vulnerabilities.
8. We heard submissions from both representatives which we address below in turn. In submissions Mr Hulme agreed that the expert’s credentials and methodology were unchallenged and that they should not be identified in this decision.
Issues to be Decided
9. The parties agreed that the issues to be decided by us are;
i. Is there a Refugee Convention Reason?
ii. Is the Appellant reasonably likely to be at risk on return (which will require consideration of whether it is a reasonable inference that the shooting incident at the grandmother’s home was orchestrated by the ACO)?
iii. Will there be Sufficiency of Protection?
iv. Is Internal Relocation a reasonable option?
Findings
Issue (i) – Is there a Convention reason?
10. On this issue we noted that the argument taken in the decision letter was that in order for male victims of trafficking to constitute a Particular Social Group in Albania they would need to demonstrate both that they had a common and immutable characteristic, and that they would be perceived differently by society as a whole.
11. We noted that that argument, which is repeated in the Respondent’s Country Policy and Information Note (‘CPIN’) on Human Trafficking from July 2024, is predicated on applying the definition of Social Group that was brought in by the Nationality Borders and Asylum Act 2022, which does not apply in this case. Mr Hulme acknowledged this but informed us that he was instructed that the Respondent’s argument was that the 2022 Act simply legislated for what the definition has always been.
12. The Respondent’s position is contrary to the position expressed in DH (Particular Social Group: Mental Health) Afghanistan [2020] UKUT 00223 (IAC) in which it was held that;
“the correct manner in which Article 10(1)(d) and related Regulations should be interpreted is by replacing the word “and” appearing between Article 10(1)(d)(i) and (ii) with the word “or”, creating an alternative rather than cumulative test.”
13. Accordingly it is sufficient to have either a common characteristic or to be perceived as different by society. It is accepted in this case that the Appellant is a victim of trafficking and therefore he has that common characteristic. We therefore find that there is a Convention reason in this case, namely that the Appellant is a Victim of Trafficking which is a Particular Social Group for the purposes of the Refugee Convention..
Issue (ii) – Risk on Return
14. We start with the only factual finding we are asked to make which is whether it is reasonably likely that the ACO was responsible for firing bullets at the Appellant’s grandmother’s home in November 2023.
15. The Respondent accepts that bullets were fired at the grandmother’s house as reflected in a police report. As noted above it is accepted that the ACO previously visited the Appellant’s grandmother in 2022 to put pressure on the Appellant when they were trying to force him to work for them. There was no challenge to the Appellant’s evidence that the family had not faced similar incidents in the past and that there was no-one else he could think of that might wish to try and harass or intimidate his grandmother. Similarly there is no challenge to the Appellant’s evidence that he received threats through Snapchat and Instagram after the police helped him leave the gang.
16. The expert report addresses the question of why the ACO might have targeted the Appellant’s grandmother and notes that they may have had an ongoing interest in the Appellant because he did not keep up his deal with the gang, or as part of a general policy of ensuring that the consequences of disobeying the gang were so severe that others would not do so in the future.
17. We remind ourselves that it is the lower standard that applies in this case, and we find it reasonably likely in the context of all the accepted facts that this incident was targeted at the Appellant and intended to intimidate him into either returning to the gang or at the very least to ensure that he did not co-operate with the authorities.
18. Moving on to other aspects of risk, we note that the Appellant’s mental health is generally poor. There was no real challenge to the extensive evidence to show that he has PTSD and has received treatment for that on the NHS including Talking Therapies and medication to help him sleep. The Respondent relied on the fact that the Appellant had been discharged from NHS Talking Therapies services in April 2025 as showing his mental health was relatively stable now. However we note that it was less stable a few weeks after that letter when the hearing was approaching and he was under more pressure. The Appellant is likely to feel more at risk and consequently his symptoms are likely to be more severe if he is removed to a country where he considers he is in danger from the ACO that targeted him before. His mental health will therefore make him more vulnerable on return to his home area.
19. As a general comment on the Respondent’s submissions we note that we were referred to three of the Respondent’s CPINs on Albania; Mental healthcare January 2025, Human Trafficking July 2024 and Actors of Protection February 2025. We were referred extensively to the Respondent’s policy conclusions in those documents but were not referred to the evidence sections of the reports.
20. We deal first with the specific risks from the ACO the Appellant fears. The ACO the Appellant fears is reported to be active in both Albania and the UK and actively involved in trafficking young men and boys to the UK. The only criticism Mr Hulme offered of the expert’s evidence in this respect was to assert that the only article cited in the report that referred to activities of the gang in Albania referred to members committing and then being arrested for murder. Mr Hulme noted that he based this assertion on having had Google translate the article. Mr Hulme had not provided the translation for us and we noted this left us in significant difficulties as it would be improper to rely on a Google translation even if it had been provided. We note in any event that the expert’s credentials are unchallenged and that the expert relies on a breadth of knowledge and experience about ACOs in Albania. It is clear that the gang has a significant profile in the UK having received coverage in the national press here. We proceed on the basis that the gang is powerful and influential and active both here and in Albania, and even if we were able to rely on what Mr Hulme discovered it would suggest that they are willing and able to kill people in Albania even if they may not have gotten away with it on that occasion.
21. The gang has demonstrated that it was willing to target the Appellant’s grandmother to put pressure on him in the past as the Respondent accepted. There is a suggestion that they may be responsible for his parents’ disappearance. That suggests a significant level of interest in the Appellant. It was suggested for the Respondent that the Appellant would not be perceived as owing the gang anything as he had worked for them in the past. That assumes that the ACO operates on a fair transactional basis as opposed to being a dangerous and violent organisation which exploits the vulnerable with extreme fear tactics as set out in the expert report. It is reasonably likely that the ACO would still perceive him as owing them something or would believe they could get more out of him. In the alternative it is reasonably likely that the ACO would wish to make an example of the Appellant for disobeying them. We find that the Appellant would likely be at risk from the ACO who targeted him before if he returned home.
22. The fact that the gang has not been back to target the Appellant’s grandmother does not mean that they would not target him if he were to return home to Albania. The only interest they would have in his grandmother is as a means to target the Appellant indirectly. The opportunity to target him would be fundamentally different. It is accepted that the Appellant’s home region is Kukes where it was accepted that there are problems with organised criminals and it is possible they would discover he had returned if they are keeping any sort of eye on his home and relatives.
23. We are therefore satisfied that the Appellant would be at risk from the gang in his home area.
24. We turn to the level of risk of trafficking generally as a male victim of trafficking. We treat TD and AD (Trafficked women) (CG) [2016] UKUT 92 as a starting point and are guided by the comments therein as to risk generally whilst bearing in mind that the Appellant is not a woman and may be at less risk as a consequence of that. We note that there are no shelters for male victims of trafficking to return to which may make him more vulnerable. In considering the risk factors at paragraph h) of the headnote we note that the Appellant is from a poor family and that currently only his grandmother and sister are in contact with him. His grandmother is dependent on a pension which has not been enough to meet her own needs which is why the Appellant borrowed money to send to her. We note that the Appellant is relatively uneducated having left school at 14. Accordingly the Appellant does not have a strong and dependable support network to help him avoid exploitation and has limited opportunities to support himself.
25. Separate from the above, the Appellant’s fear of the original ACO may make him want to flee Albania again which would make him vulnerable to other traffickers. The Appellant is from Kukes in the North which is accepted to be an area particularly affected by criminal gangs.
26. The Appellant is still young, and left Albania as a minor and so would lack basic knowledge of how to function as an adult in society there which would make him vulnerable to exploitation.
27. In terms of risk of retrafficking the main information Mr Hulme pointed us to is 3.2.1 of the Human Trafficking CPIN (there are two paragraphs with that number and we refer to the second) which is a policy section of the report and which contains an assertion that just 2-5% of victims of trafficking face retrafficking. The problems with this aside are that it is a policy conclusion and the evidence section of the report does not contain a source for this data so we can place no weight on it.
28. The Respondent’s assertion about retrafficking rates is not consistent with the evidence of the expert which was unchallenged, at pages 31 and 32 in particular which confirm that young people particularly those who have been trafficked before are at risk of retrafficking. There was no challenge to the expert’s evidence in this respect save for noting that it was contrary to the position in the CPIN . We prefer the evidence of the expert to the unsourced assertion in the policy document and find that the Appellant would be at risk of trafficking by other gangs as well.

Issue (iii) – Sufficiency of Protection
29. In terms of state protection the Respondent relies heavily on its own policy document which states in its conclusions section that there is generally an effective legal system in Albania. Particular weight was placed on the conclusions drawn in A.D. AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN - 22283/21 (No Article 3 - Prohibition of torture : First Section) [2024] ECHR 402 (07 May 2024) to that effect.
30. It is however correct to note that even a generally effective legal system may have gaps and that we have a largely unchallenged expert report that considers the effectiveness of state protection for individuals in the Appellant’s specific position.
31. In terms of the actual evidence in the CPIN we note that at 5.4.1 it confirms that the US State Department considers that;
“Police corruption was a problem and was most prevalent among front line police”
32. Further evidence in the Respondent’s policy document it confirms that recruitment and promotion is not meritocratic and is subject to external influences (5.4.4), that Corruption presents “continual challenges” (5.4.6) and that the police remain;
“highly vulnerable to corruption, and accountability remains weak, despite some anti-corruption efforts.”
33. We acknowledge significant efforts by the Albanian Police tackling corruption but at 7.4.1 the fact that there was an exponential increase in prosecutions and disciplinary actions against police officers is not evidence that there is not a problem, but evidence that the problem is sizeable. Criminal cases against police officers went from 3 to 20, disciplinary actions went from 16 to 18 and arrests went from 42 to 166. It is not reasonable to infer that this represents all corrupt officers being detected and removed from police work.
34. This evidence contained in the CPIN is entirely consistent with the risks the expert identifies. In her skeleton at paragraph 24 Counsel highlights the following relevant considerations noted by the expert;
i. The police sometimes inform those they received complaints against.
ii. Once a crime is reported it is easier to trace the person who filed it.
iii. There is no guarantee proper processes will be followed.
iv. Large volumes of senior officers have been accused of corruption relatively recently.
v. Police Officers sell access to their databases making it easier to trace people.
vi. People who have reported on ACOs in the past have been the subject of violent and sometimes lethal reprisals.
35. In the context of such pervasive corruption it is reasonably likely that the ACO would have contacts within and influence over the police and could influence proceedings in their favour. Alternately there is a real risk that officers would be scared to investigate the ACO.
36. We also note that due to his mental health and paranoia the Appellant may also struggle to approach the authorities for protection, even if he could be sure that they would help him.
37. Bearing in mind all the factors above we find that there would not be sufficient state protection for the Appellant.
Internal Relocation
38. We start from the position adopted by the Upper Tribunal in AM and BM (Trafficked women) [2010] UKUT 80;
“We consider therefore that Albania is a country where there is a real fear that traffickers might well be able to trace those who have escaped from them or indeed those whom they fear might expose them. Whether such persons would be motivated to do so is, of course, another matter, as we have discussed above. It is therefore a country where, at least, internal relocation is problematical for the victim of trafficking.”
39. The Appellant is originally from Kukes. This is in the North of Albania and is an area where there are particular problems with criminal gangs.
40. The Respondent suggests that the Appellant could relocate to Durres where his grandmother lives or Tirana. In respect of Durres we note that the Appellant’s grandmother was targeted by the ACO on two occasions as a means of putting pressure on the Appellant. We do not consider that the fact that the Appellant’s grandmother and sister have not been targeted more recently indicates that the Appellant would not be targeted if he were to move there. The ACO would be far more interested in doing harm to the Appellant given his past work with them and there is a real risk he would come to their attention as they may be monitoring them even if they are not targeting them.
41. In terms of moving to Tirana we note that;
i. The Appellant left Albania as a young man and has not lived in Albania as an adult.
ii. The Appellant has no family capable of providing him support in Albania
iii. The Appellant has a history of significant mental health problems.
42. These are factors that would make it harder to relocate in Albania.
43. The Respondent’s own CPIN on Human Trafficking in its section on anonymity says;
“Albania is a small country and people can be easily traced… it is very easy to track someone and find people via family connections across the country.”
44. The evidence is that there is a lack of shelters in Albania for male victims of trafficking. Accordingly if the Appellant were to move to another area of Albania he would be unfamiliar with the area, have a lack of support and have a lack of knowledge as to how to function in society.
45. Further as noted above there is a generalised risk to the Appellant of trafficking by other ACOs which would include those acting in Tirana and other areas of the country.
46. In terms of relocation to Tirana we consider that there would be an ongoing risk of being identified by the original ACO there in the event that anyone made enquiries of his background once he tries to establish himself there.
47. It follows for the reasons we give above that we conclude that it would not be reasonable to expect the Appellant to relocate within Albania.

Notice of Decision
The Appeal is allowed on asylum grounds.

A. Seelhoff

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

25th June 2025