Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-000693

First-tier Tribunal Nos: PA/67881/2023
LP/06142/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 26th of September 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SHERIDAN

Between

AS
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Lam, Counsel
For the Respondent: Ms Tariq, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 19 September 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 who entered the UK in May 2022 using a false passport. Upon arriving in the UK she applied for asylum, claiming to face a risk from her former fiancé who had exploited her.
2. In December 2023 the application was refused. The respondent accepted that the appellant was a victim of trafficking but not that she would face a risk from her former fiancé (or otherwise) on return. The respondent also stated that the appellant could avail herself of state protection and that it would be reasonable for her to relocate within Albania to avoid those she fears.
3. The appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal where her appeal came before Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Chana. In a decision dated 29 August 2024 the judge dismissed the appeal. The appellant now appeals against this decision.
4. There are nine grounds of appeal. When granting permission, Upper Tribunal Judge Blundell stated:
It is clearly arguable that the judge erred in reaching the adverse findings she did. As contended in the grounds, the judge arguably failed to direct herself in accordance with the Joint Presidential Guidance on Vulnerable Witnesses, and therefore to consider whether the difficulties with the appellant’s evidence might be attributable to the fact that she was accepted to be a victim of trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation. Equally, it is arguable that the judge impermissibly went behind the conclusions reached by the Single Competent Authority in reaching those conclusions. It is also arguable that the judge failed to consider whether the sufficiency of protection which is generally available in Albania would be effective for this particular appellant. The remaining grounds of appeal (of which they are many) contain a number of forensic criticisms which are less meritorious but I do not restrict the grant of permission to appeal.
5. At the outset of the hearing Ms Tariq conceded the appeal, stating that she accepted there was a material error of law in the decision for the reasons identified in the grant of permission. She submitted that the case should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be made afresh by a different judge. Mr Lam agreed.
6. Accordingly, in accordance with the agreed position of the parties, I set aside the decision and remit the case to the First-tier Tribunal to be made afresh.
Notice of Decision
7. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of a material error of law and is set aside.
8. The case is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be made afresh by a different judge.
9. This outcome was agreed by the parties.

D. Sheridan

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

23.9.2025