Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-001446

First-tier Tribunal Nos: PA/55307/2023
LP/06895/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 30th of January 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE McWILLIAM

Between

OG
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms Panagiotopoulos, Counsel instructed by Sentinel Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr Pugh, Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 15 January 2026

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. Her date of birth is 28 February 1994. She left Albania on 20 July 2020, and she arrived in the UK on 12 August 2021.
2. The Appellant has two children. The eldest was born in Albania in 2013 and the youngest was born in the UK in 2023.
3. In a decision, dated 2 September 2025, I set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Buckwell) to dismiss the Appellant’s appeal on asylum, humanitarian protection and human rights grounds.
4. It is accepted that the Appellant is a victim of domestic abuse by her ex-husband who has a police connection. He physically and verbally abused her during their marriage. In addition, her father, who is a former police officer, has made threats to kill the Appellant. The First-tier Tribunal accepted that the Appellant was last in contact with her father and family in 2012 and that she had divorced her husband.
5. My error of law decision reads as follows:-
“13. The Appellant relied on a report prepared by a psychiatrist, Dr Mohan Chawla. There was no challenge to his qualifications, expertise or opinion. He interviewed the Appellant and set out her personal history on the basis of the account which she gave to him. The expert said that she exhibited various symptoms associated with the six year ordeal of traumatic experience. The symptoms include persistent sleep issues, panic attacks, heightened fear, chest pain, mistreatment, anxiety and recurrent nightmares. The doctor described her psychological struggles including distressing flashbacks of the prolonged period of sexual abuse and violence. The expert set out that the Appellant said that she had discussed concerns with medical professionals who recognised symptoms of PTSD and she was advised to consult a psychiatrist and was prescribed medication. The Appellant engaged in counselling before and after childbirth. A psychologist (Jessica Daly) conducted nine therapy sessions with the Appellant starting from 7 August 2023 and concluding on 10 October 2023 as documented in Family Centre by Psychological Wellbeing Practitioner Record. In the expert’s opinion the Appellant exhibits symptoms consistent with PTSD.
14. The doctor’s instruction from the solicitors was to prepare a psychiatric report addressing the following:- ‘Whether [the Appellant] presents with symptoms consistent with PTSD. If so, please comment on the treatment that she would require and whether her condition will deteriorate if she were to be returned to Albania’.
15. Dr Chawla concluded that the Appellant exhibited symptoms consistent with PTSD including hypervigilance, emotional hyperarousal, and disturbing memories associated with her traumatic past events. He recommends that she should be given regular counselling sessions. The expert said that there is a risk of the Appellant’s condition deteriorating should she be returned to Albania, given her ongoing experiences of anxiety, flashbacks and fears for her safety and the safety of her children. To conclude, the expert said that the Appellant’s situation ‘warrants continued mental health support, with therapy being a crucial component. The potential risk of deterioration and safety concerns of [the Appellant] and her two kids should be carefully considered in any decisions regarding her return to Albania’.
16. I have considered the skeleton argument on which the Appellant relied before the First-tier Tribunal. In the skeleton argument at paragraph 10 it is stated that the Appellant’s personal characteristics give rise to a risk of exploitation and the case of TD and AD is relied upon. The specific features on which the Appellant relied are that the Appellant is uneducated and struggles with mental health issues. She has two young children. She does not have the appropriate skills to support herself. It is said that she would be without a support network in Albania and that she is at risk of trafficking or being placed in other exploitative situations.
17. I accept that the judge at paragraphs 34 and 44 said that he had considered the medical report and he said ‘I have subsumed into my consideration the mental health issues faced by the appellant, as referred to in the report of Dr Chawla’. He did not, however, make clear findings about how this evidence factored into the assessment of risk. Moreover, the judge did not resolve the issue of whether the Appellant was at general risk of being trafficked on return as a result of her vulnerabilities including her mental health. The errors are material and therefore I set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing the Appellant’s appeal. However, the issue to be reconsidered is narrow because the Appellant’.
18. It is necessary to make a reassessment of risk on return including whether the Appellant is at risk of being trafficked taking into account the medical evidence and applying the case of TD and AD (Trafficked women) CG [2016] UKUT 92.
“h) Trafficked women from Albania may well be members of a particular social group on that account alone. Whether they are at risk of persecution on account of such membership and whether they will be able to access sufficiency of protection from the authorities will depend upon their individual circumstances including but not limited to the following:
1) The social status and economic standing of her family
2) The level of education of the victim of trafficking or her family
3) The victim of trafficking's state of health, particularly her mental health
4) The presence of an illegitimate child
5) The area of origin
6) Age
7) What support network will be available”.
6. The matter was listed on 9 October 2025 for a substantive hearing. Prior to the hearing on 2 October 2025 the Appellant made an application to adjourn. I refused the application. The application was renewed at the hearing on 9 October 2025. In compliance with my directions the Appellant had submitted additional medical evidence, and the Respondent had served a position statement. The Appellant renewed her application on the basis that she wanted the opportunity to obtain further evidence in the light of the Respondent’s challenge to the further evidence.
7. I adjourned the hearing and I made the following directions: -
(1) The Appellant is to serve and file medical evidence on which she seeks to rely not later than ten days before the hearing.
(2) The Respondent shall serve and file a skeleton argument which sets out her position in respect of any further evidence relied on by the Appellant not later than five days before the hearing.
Preliminary issues
8. In compliance with my direction the Appellant served a bundle of 119 pages which contains documents pertaining to her mental health. Ms Panagiotopoulos relied on her skeleton argument of 2 October 2025. The Appellant had served and filed the further medical evidence and a skeleton argument in accordance with directions. The Respondent failed to comply with my directions and serve a position statement in response to the updated evidence in the 119-page bundle.
9. The parties agreed that the Appellant has anxiety and depression. She was treated as a vulnerable witness having regard to the Joint Presidential Guidance Note No 2 of 2010. The issues about which Mr Pugh wished to question the Appellant concerned entries in her GP notes. I was concerned about the nature of the intended questioning bearing in mind that the Appellant is a vulnerable witness. There was a discussion at the start of the hearing about the remit of the questions. Ms Panagiotopoulos said that the Appellant was content to give evidence and to be sensitively questioned on the issues arising from the GP notes. Cross-examination proceeded without objection.
Issues
10. The Appellant is not a victim of trafficking. She is a victim of historic domestic abuse from her father and husband. She has not been found to be at risk on return from either. The issue is whether the Appellant is at risk of exploitation/trafficking and whether there would be sufficient state protection available to her and whether she could reasonably relocate.
11. I heard submissions from both parties with which I engage in my findings.
Findings
12. The Appellant relies on a report of Dr Chawla which was before the First-tier Tribunal. It is dated 1 February 2024. There was no challenge to the report before the First-tier Tribunal. The report is almost two years old. I note that the Appellant had had counselling sessions prior to Dr Chawla’s the report. The recommendation in the report is that the Appellant has continued mental health support with therapy as a crucial component. Dr Chawla said that there is a risk of the Appellant’s condition deteriorating if she is returned to Albania, given that she has ongoing experiences of anxiety, flashbacks and fears for her safety and that of her children.
13. The Appellant relies on notes from counselling sessions. They support that she had therapy from January 2025–October 2025. The notes disclose that she has anxiety and low mood and that she is stressed and anxious about the possibility of being returned to Albania. She had been prescribed sertraline the dose of which increased from 50 to 150 mg in February 2025. In August 2025 she was prescribed citalopram because she complained that sertraline was not effective.
14. There is a letter from Ms Shumanska of 3 December 2025. She is a Community Outreach worker at Hertfordshire Mind. With reference to the counselling sessions, she says that she has had the privilege of supporting the Appellant in her role in which she assists individuals facing significant personal and social challenges. She says that she has “witnessed firsthand the profound impact that past traumatic experiences have had on [the Appellant]. These include the difficult circumstances which led her to flee Albania as well as the traumatic events she endured during her journey to the United Kingdom”. Ms Shumanska says that the Appellant continues to experience significant anxiety and depression. She says that “without resolution to her current immigration situation and with the continued uncertainty about her future, there is a serious concern that [the Appellant’s] mental health my deteriorate further, potentially resulting in more psychological distress”.
15. The Appellant’s GP notes disclose (entry in June 2025) that she was prescribed citalopram in Albania before coming to the UK. I have considered the entries in the GP notes on 18 June 2024 which Mr Pugh submitted supported that the Appellant had a boyfriend at this time and for the previous 8 months, contrary to her evidence in her witness statement. The Appellant was cross-examined about this.
16. I find that the medical evidence supports that the Appellant has anxiety and depression. She had symptoms of PTSD when seen by Dr Chawla and the counselling notes support that she still exhibits those symptoms. There is nothing to support a diagnosis of PTSD at any time. She has since she was seen by Dr Chawla received a course of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT).
17. In terms of support in Albania should the Appellant return, the First-tier Tribunal found that she does not have contact with and would not have support from her family.
18. The Appellant is not at risk from her family or her husband. No one is actively looking for her. She is not a victim of trafficking. However, in order to assess risk on return of being trafficked, the parties agreed that TD and AD applied. I have considered the factors on the basis that the Appellant is not a victim of trafficking.
19. There would not be family support available to the Appellant on return. While I have taken on board Mr Pugh’s submissions relating to the entry in the GP notes, I do not find that the entry in itself supports that the Appellant has a relationship with the youngest child’s father or another man who could support the Appellant on return. Such a finding would be speculative. The Appellant denied that this was the case. I take on board that her credibility was not an issue before the FTT. Moreover, it was not an issue that was raised by the Respondent prior to the hearing. The Appellant served the GP notes on the Respondent in compliance with my direction; however, the Respondent did not respond with a position statement. The Appellant’s oral evidence at the hearing before me was that the child’s father does have some, albeit limited, involvement in his son’s life. There is no witness statement from him about his current financial circumstances and whether he would be able to support the Appellant should she return going forward. The Appellant said that he is unemployed and could not support them. I accept that at present he is unable to offer financial support. While not determinative of this decision, I find that this may change at some time in the future. There is a relationship and it is unlikely that the father will remain out of work indefinitely.
20. The Appellant’s mental health problems make her more vulnerable as does the fact that she has been the victim of domestic abuse. However, the Appellant has previously received medication for mental health problems in Albania and there is no reason to believe that she could not continue to do so. She is not currently receiving counselling. She has completed a course of CBT treatment. Domestic abuse is historic and she is not at risk from the perpetrator. The Appellant is a single mother and has an illegitimate child both of which attract stigma. However, she will not suffer the same stigma as a victim of trafficking.
21. There is no family support or support network available to the Appellant. The background evidence supports that re-integration is “extra hard” for single mothers (see 13.2.3). Whilst there are women living independently in Tirana, it is more difficult for those with children (13.2.5). The CPIN supports that it is difficult for single women to live independently and there are few job opportunities and poor salaries to meet the cost of living. Against this the CPIN supports that there is some financial assistance to those in special categories including victims of domestic violence and “poor” individuals/households (12.2.1). In TD and AD, the UT found that it was possible for women to live independently in Albania and there is state support available. The CPIN supports that there are social housing programmes provided by the state in cities (13.2.6). I find that there will be some support from the state for the Appellant in Tirana.
22. There will undoubtedly be some economic hardship on return: however, the background evidence supports a level of social support including social housing available. Moreover, while she does not have a university degree, the Appellant has attended school to high school level. She has previously worked in Albania as an embroiderer.
23. There is no age limit for trafficking, but the Appellant is not within the target age.
24. I conclude that the Appellant is not at risk of becoming a victim of trafficking. In any event, having considered the background evidence and the risk factors identified in TD and AD, I find that there would be sufficiency of protection from the authorities. While the Appellant is from the north of Albania, relocation to Tirana is reasonable, bearing in mind the support available. I have taken into account that she has mental health problems and that there is medication available to her in Albania.
Article 8
25. While the Appellant will face challenges on return, the evidence does not support that there are very significant obstacles to integration. Focusing on the concept of integration Kamara v SSHD [2016] EWCA Civ 813 applies. She is familiar with Albania having lived there for most of her life until 2021. With reference to Parveen v SSHD [2018] EWCA Civ 932, I have assessed the obstacles to integration relied on which are identified above when considering risk, and I do not regard the hardship and difficulties to be “very significant”.
26. The Appellant’s daughter has been in the UK since August 2021. She was born in November 2013. She was almost eight when she arrived and is now aged twelve. The Appellant’s son was born in 2023. There is no cogent evidence that their best interests are anything other than remaining with their mother who has no legal status in the UK. There is no independent evidence of the children’s best interests outside of their mother’s claim. Even if the eldest child’s best interest were on balance to stay in the UK, this is a primary not paramount consideration, and I take on board EV (Philippines) v SSHD [2014] EWCA Civ 874. The Appellant has no entitlement to remain.
27. The Appellant cannot meet the requirement of the immigration rules. No doubt that she and her children have developed a private life in the UK, but there was no direct evidence of this. I have attached weight to the difficulties she and her children will face on return; however, the balance tips in favour of the Respondent. Applying s.117B of the 2002 Act, removal is in the public interest. The Appellant may speak some English; however, she needs the assistance of an interpreter at medical appointments and in court. The Appellant is not financially independent. She has not had lawful leave to remain in the UK at any time.
Notice of Decision
28. The appeal is dismissed on asylum grounds, humanitarian grounds and under Article 8 ECHR.

Joanna McWilliam

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

19 January 2026