Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-000532

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/55831/2023
LP/06890/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 27 June 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GREY
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SEELHOFF

Between

SF
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Sharma, Equity Justice Solicitors
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 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. The appellant is a citizen of Albania. She appeals against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge V. Jones (‘the Judge’) of 10 October 2024 dismissing her protection and human rights appeal.

Background

2. The appellant arrived in the United Kingdom on 26 November 2021 and claimed asylum on 7 December 2021. On 11 August 2023 the respondent refused the appellant’s asylum claim. The appellant was referred into the NRM and on 10 November 2023 the Single Competent Authority made a positive conclusive grounds decision that the appellant was a victim of human trafficking and/or modern slavery as a result of sexual exploitation.

3. Following a hearing on 17 September 2024 in the First-tier Tribunal (‘FTT’) at Birmingham the Judge dismissed the appellant’s appeal. The Judge found the appellant to be a credible witness in relation to her being trafficked to Germany and accepted that as a female victim of trafficking she was a member of a particular social group. The Judge, however, did not find the appellant credible in respect of other aspects of her account due to inconsistencies in her evidence. She did not accept that the appellant was credible in relation to the claimed threat from her father in Albania or in relation to the threat she claims she faces from her traffickers or her ex-partner.

4. The Judge concluded that the appellant had not shown even to the lower standard of proof that there is a real risk of the appellant facing persecution from her traffickers or of being re-trafficked.

5. On the matter of sufficiency of protection the Judge found that she was not persuaded there was clear evidence that corruption in Albania undermines state protection against trafficking that would cause her to depart from the findings of TD and AD (Trafficked women) CG [2016] UKUT 00092 (IAC) or the CPINs which indicate there is a sufficiency of protection for returning victims of trafficking. The Judge also found that the appellant could reasonably relocate away from Tirana on return to Albania.

Grounds of appeal

6. Permission was sought on the basis that the Judge failed to take into account the appellant’s vulnerability when assessing the weight to attach to her evidence and failed to take her vulnerability as an accepted victim of trafficking into account when assessing the issue of internal relocation.

7. Permission was granted by UTJ Owens in a decision issued on 17 April 2025. The permission decision states:

1. It is at least arguable that the judge should have had regard to the appellant’s vulnerability as a former victim of trafficking when assessing the credibility of her evidence in line with the Joint Presidential Guidance Note number 2 of 2010 and the Equal Treatment Bench Book. There is no reference in the decision to the appellant being a vulnerable witness.

2. It is also arguable that the judge failed to take into account the appellant’s vulnerability when considering the issue of internal relocation.

3. All grounds are arguable.

8. There was no rule 24 response.

The error of law hearing and decision

9. Mr Hulme indicated that the respondent intended to oppose the appellant’s appeal. In response to our direct question he confirmed that the Judge did not appear to note the appellant’s vulnerability at any point in the decision. He accepts that the appellant is a victim of trafficking. However, Mr Hulme pointed to the fact that the Judge had recorded the appellant was an accepted victim of trafficking and noted the appellant’s submission of medical evidence in her appeal and must therefore be assumed to have taken that into account these matters in her findings and conclusion.

10. We indicated that we did not need to hear from Mr Sharma and that we found the Judge had made a material error of law of the nature asserted in the grounds.

11. The Joint Presidential Guidance Note No 2 of 2010: Child, vulnerable adult and sensitive appellant guidance provides an indication of factors for a tribunal to take into account in determining whether an individual may be vulnerable. These may include mental health problems and the person’s domestic and personal circumstances. The guidance indicates that a decision maker should determine the extent of a vulnerability and the effect it may have on the quality of an individual’s evidence and “the weight to be placed on such vulnerability in assessing the evidence before [them], taking into account the evidence as a whole”. Guidance is provided on steps that a tribunal should consider taking at a substantive hearing to assist a vulnerable person in giving oral evidence. At [14] and [15] of the Guidance it states:

14. Consider the evidence, allowing for possible different degrees of understanding by witnesses and appellant compared to those are not vulnerable, in the context of evidence from others associated with the appellant and the background evidence before you. Where there were clear discrepancies in the oral evidence, consider the extent to which the age, vulnerability or sensitivity of the witness was an element of that discrepancy or lack of clarity.

15. The decision should record whether the Tribunal has concluded the appellant (or a witness) is a child, vulnerable or sensitive, the effect the Tribunal considered the identified vulnerability had in assessing the evidence before it and thus whether the Tribunal was satisfied whether the appellant had established his or her case to the relevant standard of proof. In asylum appeals, weight should be given to objective indications of risk rather than necessarily to a state of mind.

12. The appellant is an accepted victim of trafficking. She claims to suffer from mental health difficulties, with low mood and anxiety and is on medication to help her sleep. At the time of the hearing the appellant was on a waiting list to receive counselling support. The Judge correctly records these matters in the decision. However, in an otherwise well-reasoned and detailed decision there is no indication in the decision that the Judge took the appellant’s vulnerabilities into account when assessing the weight to attach to her account or in accommodating her in giving evidence at the hearing.

13. At [45.3] of the decision the Judge takes into account the availability of treatment for anxiety and depression in Albania, however, there is no specific consideration of how the appellant’s vulnerability may impact her ability to internally relocate.

14. Although the Judge recorded in the decision that it was accepted the appellant was a female victim of trafficking and notes that the evidence before her included medical evidence, there is no indication that she considered with the parties any appropriate adjustments that may be required to assist the appellant in giving evidence or that she directed herself to take account of the appellant’s vulnerability in the assessment of the credibility of her account. In our view it was incumbent upon the Judge to consider the Joint Presidential guidance regardless of whether she was invited by either representative to treat the appellant as a vulnerable person. In order to ensure a fair hearing a judge is required to give consideration to a person’s potential vulnerability in accordance with the guidance and the ETBB.

15. In AM (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 1123 at [30] the Court of Appeal held the failure to apply the Joint Presidential Guidance would most likely amount to a material error of law:

“To assist parties and tribunals a Practice Direction 'First-tier and Upper Tribunal Child, Vulnerable Adult and Sensitive Witnesses', was issued by the Senior President, Sir Robert Carnwath, with the agreement of the Lord Chancellor on 30 October 2008. In addition, joint Presidential Guidance Note No 2 of 2010 was issued by the then President of UTIAC, Blake J and the acting President of the FtT (IAC), Judge Arfon-Jones. The directions and guidance contained in them are to be followed and for the convenience of practitioners, they are annexed to this judgment. Failure to follow them will most likely be a material error of law.”

16. In light of the Judge’s credibility findings arising from inconsistencies in the appellant’s account we find the Judge’s failure was a material one. For these reasons we find that the decision involved the making of a material error of law.

17. We have considered paragraph 7.2 (b) of the Practice Statements of the Immigration and Asylum Chambers of the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal and the principles in Begum (Remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 46 (IAC). In view of the nature of the error and the potential impact on the Judge’ credibility findings the parties both agreed that the matter should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard again with no findings preserved.

Notice of Decision

The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of material errors on a point of law and is set aside with no findings preserved.

The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal at Taylor House, to be heard afresh by any judge other than Judge Jones.

Sarah Grey

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

19 June 2025