Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-000625
FtT No: PA/56220/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On the 11 August 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BULPITT
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RIPLEY

Between

GL
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms A Childs, Counsel for A J Jones Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr B Hulme, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 10 July 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
Introduction
1. The appellant made a protection claim in March 2022 which was refused by the respondent in a decision dated 22 February 2024. First-tier Tribunal Judge Clarke (“the Judge”) went on to dismiss the appellant’s appeal in a decision dated 17 November 2024. The appellant was granted permission to appeal by First-tier Tribunal Judge Veloso on 2 February 2025 on all grounds. Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Haria found there to be an error of law on all grounds on 27 May 2025. The appeal was retained for remaking in the Upper Tribunal with certain of the Judge’s findings preserved which we turn to below.
Relevant Facts
2. The appellant’s claim was that he is an Albanian national and used to run a car business in Albania. The mafia threatened him, beat him and took over his business. The police did not help him, so he fled Albania in July 2021.
3. The Judge found the appellant to be credible and accepted his account, but dismissed his appeal on the basis that the mafia would no longer be interested in him, so long as he did not seek to return to his business. It was further found that the appellant had demonstrated he could safely exercise an internal flight alternative as he had spent 15 months in his car away from his home area. In the decisions to grant permission to appeal and to find an error of law, the reason for dismissing the appeal was considered inconsistent with the finding that the appellant’s account had been accepted. The appellant had not suggested that the mafia would cease to be interested in him for this reason. It was also held that living in a car was not a reasonable internal flight alternative.
4. The following findings made by the Judge were preserved in the error of law decision:
a. the credibility of the material core of the appellant’s account at [11], [12] and [14],
b. whether there is sufficiency of protection at [17] to [21], and
c. whether there is a refugee convention reason at [30] to [32].
Hearing
5. The hearing has been recorded. The following details are set out in summary. The appellant has lodged a supplementary statement. Mr Hulme made no objection to this being admitted and we agreed to admit it pursuant to Rule 15. Both parties have filed skeleton arguments. There was some discussion at the outset of the hearing regarding the meaning of the credibility assessment made at the end of paragraph 11, one of the preserved paragraphs. Further it was not clear what exactly was the material core of the appellant’s account, as this was not set out in any of the preserved paragraphs.
6. After a brief adjournment the representatives agreed that the material core of the balance account could be summarised as:
The appellant discovered his business was being used by the mafia for drug related activities. He reported this to the police, but they told him not to pursue his complaints. He was beaten and threatened by the mafia for refusing to pay protect protection money and for reporting to the police. The appellant left his home area and spent approximately 15 months moving around and living in his car. He then travelled to Italy and received a threatening text there informing him that the mafia were informed by TIMS (Albanian border security) that he was now in Italy. He then returned to Albania and left again. They had threatened his family and, after his father had died in October 2024, his family had been questioned by the mafia about whether the appellant was coming home to attend the funeral.
7. Mr Hulme further agreed that if the mafia were intent on pursuing the appellant, they would have the connections to be able to trace him, as found in BF (Tirana – gay men) Albania CG [2019] UKUT 00093 (IAC).
8. In oral evidence the appellant clarified that there had been people that attended his father’s funeral that the family did not know. He also stated that when he returned to Albania from Italy he only stayed for one day. He referred to his earlier account that he had had his expired passport taken from him when he returned from Italy.
9. Mr Hulme relied on the respondent’s decision, review and skeleton and Ms Childs her skeleton argument. They made further submissions which are addressed in the discussion below.
Discussion.
10. This re-making only concerns internal flight and insurmountable obstacles. The findings as to the lack of a Convention reason, the appellant’s history and the unavailability of a sufficiency of protection in his local area have been preserved.
Internal flight
11. The first issue to address is whether the history shows that there is a real risk that the mafia would have sufficient motivation to pursue him. Mr Hulme relied on the lack of an encounter with either the police or the mafia during the 15 months that the appellant was away from his home area and moving around in his car. He had had no direct threats since 2021, save for the one by text when he was in Italy. Ms Child argued that the appellant was less likely to be identified or traced if he was on the move. She also argued there was no alternative reason for living in this way, other than that he was fearful to stay in one place. We note that if he had done so he would have needed to register, which we find below, would increase the risk of him being located, should the mafia be motivated to look for him.
12. Mr Hulme accepted that the mafia where asking questions about the appellant and had attended the funeral. However, he argued that they had not made clear threats against the appellant at that time. Miss Childs submitted that the text threat referring to TIMS indicated that the mafia were tracking him. It had been accepted that threats had been made in the past because the appellant had failed to pay protection money and had reported the mafia to the police. The mafia’s questions about the appellant and their attendance at the funeral clearly indicated an ongoing interest. It was plausible that the mafia would seek to punish the appellant for failing to pay protection money and for reporting them to the police, in order to enforce their own reputation. She relied on paragraph 339K of the Immigration Rules.
13. We note that although the undisputed history is that the mafia had not contacted the appellant directly, save for the one text in Italy, they had been threatening the family (for example question 88 Page 401). We also note that at paragraph 28 of his first witness statement (page 35) the appellant has stated that when his expired passport was taken, he was told it was to prevent him from travelling abroad. We accept that the enquiries the Mafia made regarding the appellant in October 2024 indicated that they remained interested in him. The mafia clearly knew the appellant’s mobile number and so it is unclear why they would not have continued to threaten him by text whilst he was in Albania. Nonetheless we are satisfied that the appellant has established to the lower standard that the mafia continued to be interested in him. It is not disputed they have severely beaten him before for failing to pay protection money and for reporting them to the police. We are satisfied that paragraph 339K applies and are satisfied that the risk to the appellant is not just local. We accept that the text threat sent to him in Italy discloses that the mafia had alerted their contacts in security to their interest in the appellant. This demonstrates that the mafia’s interest is not limited to the appellant presence in, or return to, his home area.
14. Mr Hulme has accepted that, if the mafia are so minded, that they may be able to use their connections to trace the appellant. At paragraph 181 and headnote (iii) of (BF) Albania, the Upper Tribunal held:
There is only very limited evidence that an individual would be traced to Tirana by operation of either the registration system or criminal checks at the airport. However, it is plausible that a person might be traced via family or other connections being made on enquiry in Tirana.
15. The appellant may therefore come to the attention of the mafia through their connections. It was additionally confirmed in BF Albania, that it is a requirement that an Albanian national register his place of residence in Albania. Although (BF) Albania is not authority for the effective use of the registration system to trace an individual, we are satisfied that the appellant has shown that the particular mafia that he was fearful of had the reach to do so. This is demonstrated by the undisputed text message that the appellant received and the confiscation of his old passport, both indicating the mafia’s influence over the security authorities.
16. Contrary to the appellant’s skeleton, it was held in the preserved findings at paragraphs 30–32 of the First-tier Tribunal decision that the appellant had not established a Convention reason for his fears and, specifically, was not a member of a particular social group. That was clearly the view of the respondent in the decision appealed against and the Judge sustained that position in his decision. That finding is conclusive as to the appellant’s asylum claim, but not the humanitarian protection claim. We accept that the appellant has established that there is no reasonable internal flight option available to him. We are therefore satisfied that if the appellant returns to Albania there is a real risk of him suffering serious harm contrary to Article 3 ECHR and paragraph 339C of the immigration rules.
Very significant obstacles
17. We confirm that, we are satisfied on the balance of probabilities that for the same reasons that the appellant would be unable to exercise a reasonable internal flight alternative, he would also encounter very significant obstacles to his integration. We further find that by avoiding registration, the appellant would find himself an outsider in the sense referred to in SSHD v. Kamara [2016] EWCA Civ 813. He would be excluded from the benefit and healthcare system if he did not register and removal in those circumstances would involve a disproportionate interference with his Convention rights.

Notice of Decision
18. The appellant’s protection appeal is allowed on Humanitarian Protection grounds.
19. The appellant’s human rights appeal is also allowed.
20. The anonymity order is to continue.

F Ripley
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

29 July 2025