Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-000360

First-tier Tribunal Nos: PA/57308/2023
LP/06680/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 30 June 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE McWILLIAM
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KAMARA

Between

The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Appellant
and

ES
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr K Pullinger, Counsel, instructed by Law Lane Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr N Wain, Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 13 May 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the Respondent is granted anonymity.

No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the Respondent, likely to lead members of the public to identify the Respondent. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. We shall refer to the Respondent as the Appellant as he was before the First-tier Tribunal (FtT). The FtT made a direction to anonymise the Appellant. There is no reason for us to interfere with this.
2. The Appellant is a citizen of Albania. He was born on 8 February 2002.
3. The Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) was granted permission to appeal against the decision of the FtT (Judge Shiner) to allow the Appellant’s appeal against the decision of the SSHD, on 8 September 2023, to refuse his claim for asylum.
4. The appeal concerns s.33 of Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (NABA 2022) which reads as follows:
“(2) A group forms a particular social group for the purposes of Article 1(A)(2) of the Refugee Convention only if it meets both of the following conditions.
(3) The first condition is that members of the group share—
(a) an innate characteristic,
(b) a common background that cannot be changed, or
(c) a characteristic or belief that is so fundamental to identity or conscience that a person should not be forced to renounce it.
(4) The second condition is that the group has a distinct identity in the relevant country because it is perceived as being different by the surrounding society.”
5. It is common ground between the parties that the FtT erred in law. It is agreed that the judge applied the wrong test when considering whether the Appellant, a male victim of trafficking from Albania, is a member of a particular social group (PSG) for the purposes of the Refugee Convention. The test that should be applied under s.33 of the (NABA 2022) is conjunctive. An Appellant must satisfy s. 33 (3) and (4). The judge applied the pre-NABA 2022 disjunctive test with reference to DH (Particular Social Group: Mental Health) Afghanistan [2020] UKUT 00223. The judge was satisfied that male victims of trafficking from Albania share an innate characteristic and therefore satisfied the first condition (ss.3), but did not go on to consider the second condition, namely whether male victims of trafficking from Albania have a distinct identity because the group is perceived as being different by the surrounding society (ss.4).
6. It is accepted by the SSHD that Appellant is a victim of trafficking. The following findings of the FtT have not been challenged:
(1) The Appellant has an immutable characteristic.
(2) The Appellant is at risk on return to Albania from loan sharks who trafficked him. The threat remains. He is at risk of being re-trafficked.
(3) The Appellant cannot reasonably be expected to relocate.
(4) There is no sufficiency of protection available to the Appellant in Albania.
7. The Appellant says that the error is not material to the outcome because the Appellant satisfies s.33(4). The SSHD does not agree.
8. The issue for us to determine is whether the Appellant satisfies s.33(4). We heard submissions. Both parties relied on skeleton arguments. The Appellant also relied on a Rule 24 response. Both parties addressed us on the Report of a Fact-Finding Mission Albania: Human trafficking conducted between 5 and 12 October 2022 (the FFM report). This document discloses a number of interviews that the FFM conducted with various organisation in Albania concerned with trafficking. Both parties relied on the Policy and Information Note Albania: Human trafficking version 16.0 July 2024 (the 2024 CPIN). Mr Pullinger also relied on the earlier CPIN version 15.0 (CPIN version 15.0), a report by Asylos; Albania: Trafficked boys and Young Men 2019 (the Asylos report) and a report by David Neale from Garden Court Chambers.
The SSHD’s Submissions
9. The SSHD’s position is that stated at section 2.1.3 of the 2024 CPIN:
“Men who are trafficked do not 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 (see Prevalence and Treatment of victims of trafficking.”
10. Mr Wain’s primary submission was that there is no evidence to support that male victims of trafficking have a distinct identity in Albania. Mr Wain submitted that whilst stigma may affect both women and men, the problem lies with the perception of the victim’s family rather than society as a whole. In support of this he relied on the FFM report. The FFM interviewed an official from Key Adviser which is licensed by the Ministry of Economy and Finance as a private employment agency and are part of a project led by UNICEF Albania and financed by the British Embassy in Tirana. The interview is set out at pp.100-113. Mr Wain relied on the following question and answer at (FFM report p.100):
“Q. How does the stigma present itself in the community and family?
A. The core of the problem is the family. When we talk to VOT we find that they fear they won’t be employed because they think the employers will judge them for being a VOT. However the opposite has happened. Businesses and employers were welcoming and didn’t have a problem and treated them equally, a great achievement. The problem lies with the family. For example, in Dibra we found a job for a girl VOT. She was well prepared and ready to work, she went to work the first day, but on the second day her family did not allow her to go back to work. The family thought that when she was working and going to work that people were pointing and saying she was a VOT. This is the perception of the family. Itis common. The community is not very welcoming either.”
11. In this case the Appellant has the emotional support of his parents as found by the FtT at [37] and therefore he will not be stigmatised.
12. Mr Wain submitted that the root of the stigma is gender. He relied on the FFM’s interview with Different and Equal shelters (D&E), a non-profit organization dedicated to providing high quality reintegration services for victims of trafficking (FFM report p19):
“Q. What is at the root of this stigma? Why are there different attitudes?
A. Generally it is gender discrimination. Females experience gender imbalance in the family, with cases where they have been victims of violence prior to trafficking. People do not have the right information about human rights and victims and they blame victims. Families face shame as they do not see the woman as being exploited, they see her as exercising prostitution and putting shame on the family. In families where the daughter went abroad or to Tirana, or victims of sexual violence in general, they experience discrimination.”
13. Mr Wain submitted in the alternative that the background evidence supports that that it is the act of seeking assistance that generates adverse societal perception. In this case the FtT at [37] found that in the light of the Appellant’s vulnerabilities and the societal attitudes of those in Albania he is unlikely to accept such limited support as may be available to him in Albania. In any event, the background evidence supports that men tend to be unwilling or reluctant to ask for help. Mr Wain drew our attention to section 10.8 of the 2024 CPIN. This supports that few men ask for help or seek protection.
The Appellant’s Submissions
14. Mr Pullinger drew to our attention to Appellant having been subjected to sexual exploitation. He referred us to [26] of the FtT decision.
15. Mr Pullinger referred us to section 9.1.1 of the 2024 CPIN which deals with victims of trafficking and a report from UNISEF by Deanna Davy which considered the economic reintegration of trafficking survivors (thirteen women and one man) who between October 2021 and February 2022 had received reintegration support. The CPIN 2024 quotes from the report:
“The study identified that society-level stigma towards trafficking survivors, especially those who experienced trafficking for sexual exploitation, is a significant issue in Albania. Both survivors and key informants who participated in interviews for the study underscored that trafficking survivors frequently encounter stigma when enrolling in and undertaking study, vocational training or employment, or starting up a new business. A number of stories were shared by survivors and key informants during the interviews and FGDs regarding discrimination. Survivors and key informants reported that survivors often face stigma when attempting to access state services, such as employment and financial support. They may be belittled, made to feel inferior, branded liars and denied any assistance.”
16. At section 9.1.6 the 2024 CPIN refers to and quotes from the FFM report (p. 20) which states:
“Sources consulted during the Home Office FFM 2022, including officials from UNICEF Albania, D&E, NISMA ARSIS, CLCI, GPO (General Prosecutor’s Office), Caritas, Ministry of Interior and Key Adviser stated that some VOT, particularly women and girls who had been sexually exploited, faced stigma, discrimination and rejection from both family members and society.”
17. At section 9.1.2 of the 2024 CPIN there is reference to the interview by the FFM with Mary Loreto (FFM report p.100):
“Q. Is it mostly women who suffer the stigma?
A. Stigma affects both men and women, boys and girls, I would actually say boys and men feel much more stigmatised than women. When we talked to our vocational students about human trafficking they recalled an old phenomenon in the 1990s when young girls were taken on boats to Italy for sexual exploitation. So they associate trafficking with sexual exploitation and feel insulted and never admit they are VOT. They cannot cope with the fact that trafficking has evolved and now displays in other forms and doesn’t just equate with sexual exploitation. They don’t think that they meet this category. They don’t see labour exploitation as trafficking.”
In the same interview the following is stated (p94):
“Q. You mention that you have not seen many women returning to Albania, but in regard to men do you see them return even if they don’t self-identify?
A. They don’t self-identify because of the shame, so they return (to Albania) but with the intention of leaving again.”
18. Section 9.1.2 of the 2024 CPIN refers to the FFM report at p.32. This documents an interview with the General Director of State Police which states:
“Q. Do men face the same levels of stigma?
A. I have not identified a big difference. For the past 10 years there has been more support services, including from the state. We have more procedures, new structures and more engagement, but there is a need for more financing.”
19. The FFM interviewed three UNICEF Officials (FFM report p29/30):
“Q. Do men experience the same levels of stigma?
A. If they are adults they face some stigma, less so with minors. Few men ask for help on their own. Only a few go to ask the police for help. Of all the cases of men, only 2 have asked for help. Others were asking for help on something else and by giving help we recognised that this was actually a situation of trafficking. So men feel they have to be strong and not ask for support and we see they are more resistant to receive counselling. We support the employment of males by collaborating with the Regional Employment Office and different business companies.”
20. Mr Pullinger said that the evidence strongly suggests that male victims of trafficking are discriminated against and that there is stigma associated with being a victim. The fact that male victims of trafficking are reluctant to access support and self-identify does not mean that they are not perceived as different. The reluctance to self-identify is precisely because male victims of trafficking are perceived as being different.
21. More broadly, it is possible to see that male victims of trafficking are perceived as different by society through the offering of support to them by the Albanian state. As noted at section 4.6.2 of the 2024 CPIN:
“The CG case of TD and AD did not specifically consider the availability of protection for men or children. However, many of the measures put in place by the government considered in that case – the laws making trafficking illegal, publishing standard operating procedures, the establishment of a national referral mechanism, the creation of an anti-trafficking co-ordinator, and reintegration support – are applicable to men and children. Whilst men are not currently accommodated in shelters, they may have access to rented accommodation or rent subsidies (see Prevention and protection and Shelters and specialised centres).”
22. Despite having access to the same framework as women, section 11.2.5 of the 2024 CPIN states:
“The January 2023 British Embassy letter to the Home Office stated that ‘Regarding capacity to support adult male victims/potential victims, they are already included within the overall provision and, specifically, Different and Equal, Vatra and Mary Ward Loreto provide support to adult male victims and potential victims outside the shelter, including in rented accommodation.”
23. Further, section 12.1.7 states:
“When asked what reintegration support was offered to adult male VOT, an official from D&E indicated there was an issue with the quality of service, but told the Home Office FFT 2022 that ‘Men are able to access the same levels of service [as women] and can receive education and vocational training…’ The official from Tjeter Vizion similarly stated that, aside from access to shelters, ‘In law VOT are equal and there should be no discrimination on ethnicity or gender, so men have the same access as women and girls.’ The official from the Albanian Ministry of Interior noted some success in reintegration efforts, but stated that reintegration requires more resources, and more should be done to help men and boys reintegrate.”
24. Mr Pullinger said that this demonstrates an acknowledgment by Albania that male victims of trafficking need more support because of their distinct identity. Such support would not be required if they were not perceived as being different. They are not accessing support because of stigma.
25. Mr Pullinger relied on the 2024 CPIN version 15 at section 7.24 which refers to a report from Asylos which reads as follows:
“Asylos, a global network of volunteers providing free-of-charge COI research for lawyers helping asylum with their claim, and ARC Foundation, the charitable branch of Asylum Research Centre (ARC), set up in 2010 to raise standards in the refugee status determination (RSD) process, published a report in 2019 relating to trafficked boys and young men (Asylos/ARC report 2019). The report cited a January 2019 interview with Professor Haxhiymeri of the University of Tirana, who opined: ‘… the same risk factors that have been identified for victims of trafficking regardless of gender apply to boys and young men.
There is no research in Albania about the profiles of trafficked boys and young men whereas we have done research on the profiles of trafficked girls and young women in this country. But the risk factors [of poverty, low education, suffering from physical or mental disabilities, domestic violence and/or sexual abuse within the family or a pre-existing blood feud, being LGBT and for children, being Roma or Egyptian or homeless] are also true for trafficked boys and young men in my opinion’.”
26. Mr Pullinger relied on version 15 of the CPIN at para 7.2.4 which supports that the intention of the Asylos report is to fill the gap in the COI literature about the situation of Albanian boys and young men who are victims of trafficking and to contribute to a more informed debate about the situation and has been relied on by the SSHD in various CPINs. It states as follows:
“The Asylos/ARC report also provides evidence that men and boys do experience stigma. Anne-Marie Barry stated human tracking in Albania is still mainly associated and identified with females in sexual exploitation. Males are unlikely to be seen by authorities as potential victims of human tracking. There is also a strong sense of shame and stigma associated with these issues, and from my experience of speaking with NGOs and support agencies, it seems that it would be rare for a male to disclose exploitation, due to the associated shame surrounding that.
Therefore, multiple sources support the view that, because of the association between tracking and sexual exploitation in public perception in Albania, there is a stigma attached to being identified as a victim of tracking. Men and boys are reluctant to identify as victims of tracking because of the stigma associated with doing so. The sources, therefore, do not support the suggestion that male victims of tracking who are identified as such do not experience stigma”.
Findings
27. We did not have the benefit of expert evidence and the evidence before us was limited and piecemeal; however, considering it in the round, we find that a male victim of trafficking may be part of a group which has a distinct identity in Albania because it is perceived as being different by the surrounding society. Whether such a person is at risk as a result is a fact sensitive.
28. While the Asylos report is not cited in the 2024 CPIN, this is not a reason to discard it. There is no evidence to undermine the opinion of Asylos. We note that it is relied on by David Neale in his report. It supports that there has been little research into male trafficking victims which is partly explained by men being reluctant to self-identify and seek assistance.
29. The background evidence supports that there may not be as many male victims of trafficking as female victims. However, the overall evidence supports that the low number is a result of male victims not identifying as a victims of trafficking. From the background evidence we find that Albanian society does not recognise men as victims of trafficking. The background evidence would support that most trafficked men are victims of forced labour and do not see themselves as victims of trafficking. In Albania victims of trafficking are perceived to have been trafficked for the purposes of sexual exploitation. The evidence supports that there is a perception that all trafficking victims have been sexually exploited.
30. The FFM interviewed an organisation, Tjeter Vizion, which offers social services for vulnerable children, youth and women in the city of Elbasan (p31 FFM). The interviewee was asked about societal attitudes towards trafficking victims and societal and cultural norms. He said that they [victims s of trafficking] do not have dignity and they are not treated like decent members of society. The interviewee is asked whether men access support services the same as women. The answer given is ”I think yes, but I think it is more difficult to identify male VOT. Women report more, true but the level of intervention is the same” (FFM report p.31). This supports that men do not self-identify, but if they do the same support is available to them which is available to female victims of trafficking. The very fact that measures are put in place by the Albanian government to help victims of trafficking of both genders supports the Appellant’s case that like women, male victims of trafficking have a distinct identity.
31. While the evidence relied on by the SSHD which Mr Wain took us to is capable of supporting that stigma arises from the family rather than society and that stigma is gender based, we do not accept that this represents the evidence as a whole. We find that the evidence supports that stigma comes from the family and society at large. We rely on the UNISEF report (section 9.1.1 of the CPIN) and the overall thrust of the evidence which supports that stigma is societal. It follows that we do not accept that the support from family would mitigate how society views a victim of trafficking.
32. We accept that the stigma attached to women victims of trafficking may be partly gender based, but the background evidence as a whole does not support that it is the root. TD & AD (Trafficked women) CG [2016] UKUT 92 supports that Albanian women victims of trafficking may well be a PSG. The evidence overall supports that women victims are more likely to identify as victims of trafficking and that they are perceived as having been sexually exploited and likely to face challenges on account of stigma. The background evidence before us establishes that it is reasonably likely that stigma affects both genders.
33. There is reference in the SSHD’s skeleton argument before the Upper Tribunal in respect of the error of law hearing to sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.7 of the 2024 CPIN. Mr Wain did not specifically draw our attention to these. The sections read as follows:
“5.1.3 The evidence does not suggest that single men and boys experience the social stigma that may apply to lone females
There is no indication that males generally face discrimination. As such, male victims are likely to be able to relocate. Each case will depend on its particular facts, taking into account the person’s ability to support themselves to a subsistence level in the place of relocation and the intent and reach of their former traffickers.”
34. These paragraphs refer specifically to internal relocation. It is difficult to reconcile what is said with section 9 of the 2024 CPIN and the evidence generally which specifically engages with the treatment of victims of trafficking of both genders and perceptions. The UNISEF report relied on by Mr Pullinger concerns 13 women and 1 man and the stigma identified is to survivors generally (see 9.1.4, 9.1.5). The UNISEF report does not necessarily distinguish between men and women. Section 5.1.3 of the 2024 CPIN does not sit well with the FFM report. We note that Mary Loreto told the FFM that in her opinion men and boys feel more stigmatised (FFM p.100). What is said at para 5.1.3 may be describing a situation where a male victim of trafficking will not self-identify and therefore he will not be considered by society to be a victim of trafficking.
35. We find that the evidence supports that there is limited information about the experience and treatment of male victims of trafficking and that they are generally trafficked for forced labour, criminal activities or forced begging and rarely for sexual exploitation. There is a general lack of awareness in Albania that men and boys may be victims of trafficking. The evidence supports that it is reasonably likely that male victims of trafficking do not see themselves as and they are not considered to be victims of trafficking in Albania society. The FFM interviewed the General Directorate of State Police, on 6 October 2022 who was asked how many males are trafficked and in answer said that no trafficked males have been identified this year (FFM p.35). The FFM interviewed the executive direction of Vatra Psycho- Social Centre. The interviewee was asked whether men who return from abroad face the same stigma as women and the answer given is “No, or at least they pretend there is no stigma. In Albania men need to be strong and they don’t accept that they have been trafficked or placed into labour exploitation. They would rather say that it was their choice” (FFM p.81). In answer to being asked why people are trafficked the following answer is given, “women mainly for prostitution, and men for forced labour”. The statistics given at p.74 of the FFM report indicate that 3% of trafficked men are sexually exploited (FFM p74). The interviewee also stated that she does not work with men (FFM p82).
36. The SSHD’s skeleton argument prepared for the EOL hearing refers to a sentence in the FFM report at p.103, “We don’t see men and boys as victims”. Mr Wain did not address us on this. The sentence has been taken out of context. When reading it in context, it does not reflect how Albanian society considers male victims of trafficking. It reflects that the social services do not see men or boys as victims. It concerns again the perception in Albanian society that men who are trafficked for labour purposes are not victims of trafficking.
37. The evidence supports that male victims of trafficking will be perceived to have been trafficked for sexual exploitation and as such subject to the same discrimination and stigmatism as trafficked women. However, very few men identify as victims of trafficking and therefore the majority do not face the same societal stigma or discrimination because they are not perceived to be victims of trafficking by Albanian society (see paragraphs 3.3.3 of the CPIN).
38. Mr Wain’s submission that if there is stigma attached to male victims of trafficking, the problem is confined to the small proportion of men who come forward and disclose that they are victims does not detract from the group having a distinct identity in Albania because it is perceived as being different by the surrounding society. We find that the fact that less men seek help supports the proposition that the stigma they face may be more significant than that experienced by women. We find that the evidence supports that one of the reasons why men feel shame is because of the perception that trafficking is sexual exploitation.
39. The Appellant is a member of PSG. This was the sole issue we were asked to determine. On the basis that the Appellant is a member of a PSG, he is a refugee. Mr Wain did not suggest that as a member of a PSG he would not be at risk on return of persecution.
40. The judge did not materially err in law. The decision to allow the appeal on asylum grounds is maintained.

Joanna McWilliam
26 June 2025

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber