Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-001954

First-tier Tribunal Nos: PA/59987/2023
LP/01610/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 12 September 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE McWILLIAM

Between

HB
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms S Saifolahi, instructed by Oaks Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr B Hulme , Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 2 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 or any member of her family. 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 30 April 1974.
2. In my decision of 7 July 2025 I found that the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Malcolm) erred when allowing the Appellant’s appeal on asylum grounds. I set aside the decision. The reasons for doing so are set out in my decision. They can be summarised as follows. The judge attached weight to the Appellant’s age when assessing risk on return. The Appellant is aged fifty one. She was fifty when her case was hearing before the First-tier Tribunal. While the risk factors set out in TD and AD (Trafficked women) (CG) v SSHD [2016] UKUT 92 include age, the expert’s (Mr Whitwell) evidence in that case was the age group targeted by traffickers is late teens/early twenties ([152]). The judge did not explain why the Appellant’s age was a risk factor and it is not clear what weight he attached to it in the assessment of risk. The error infects the judge’s assessment of risk. Therefore the risk factors need to be recalibrated.
3. The judge accepted the Appellant’s evidence. The Appellant is separated from her husband who left the family home in 2011. She is a victim of domestic violence. In 2017 her son was forcibly engaged in selling drugs. The Appellant fled Albania in August 2017 with the assistance of a cousin. She fled with her son and daughter to Belgium. Her cousin owed money to traffickers and as a result in Belgium the Appellant was trafficked by Albanian men. She was forced into prostitution for four years. The Appellant’s daughter was also trafficked and the family was separated. The Appellant came to the UK in 2021 and claimed asylum. Her daughter was granted refugee status following an appeal. The Appellant fears reprisals from her traffickers including being re-trafficked and reprisals from those who trafficked her son. The Appellant has been reunited with her daughter UK.
4. There was before the judge a psychiatric report prepared by Dr Raj Persaud. This was not challenged by the Respondent. In his opinion the Appellant has PTSD, depression and trauma from sexual exploitation. The judge found that the evidence did not indicate that the Appellant’s family’s social status or economic standing is very high and that the Appellant does not have a high level of education. The judge found that the Appellant is suffering from “fairly significant mental health problems”. The judge found that the Appellant’s parents were elderly and in poor health and that she has limited contact with them. The judge found that the Appellant was unlikely to be able to access assistance from her brother and that there would be a lack of family support in Albania. The judge found that the Appellant may well fear the people who exploited her son but the main risk to her on return was as a result of her being a victim of trafficking and the difficulties that she would experience as a result.
5. The issue for me is to determine risk on return properly applying TD and AD to the Appellant’s circumstances.
6. I have the composite bundle which includes the evidence before the First-tier Tribunal. The Appellant has made an application under Rule 15 (2A) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 to admit a supplementary bundle on behalf of the Appellant. There was no objection by Mr Hulme and the evidence was admitted. It contains the following documents:

(a) Article from Asylos: “Albania: Trafficking” April 2024 (“the Asylos report”)
(b) Home Office CPIN “Albania: Human Trafficking” July 2024 (“the 2024 CPIN”)
(c) Addendum Report from Country Expert, Dr James Korovilas dated 14 August 2025
TD and AD (Trafficked women) (CG) v SSHD [2016] UKUT 92
7. It is agreed that the Appellant’s circumstances must be assessed applying the risk factors in TD 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.
Submissions
8. I heard submissions from the parties. Ms Saifolahi relied on written submissions which she expanded upon at the hearing.
9. Dealing with the Appellant’s age, Mr Hulme submitted that the Appellant was outside the target age. He draw my attention to the addendum report by Dr Korovilas which supports that the Appellant may be at reduced risk of being forced into sexual exploitation. He also took me to the Asylos report which he said supported that children and young woman are primarily targeted for sexual exploitation and children and men for begging and forced labour. He relied on paragraph 8.4 of the 2024 CPIN to support that children and young women are most at risk of trafficking. He drew my attention to a common method of recruitment being cases in which boyfriends had exploited victims and trafficker s generally tend to me known to the victim. He said that because of the Appellant’s age and life experience she would be less vulnerable to this kind of targeting. Mr Hulme relied on the Country Policy and Information Note: actors of protection, Albania, February 2025 (the 2025 CPIN) at paragraph 2.1.4 and A.D and Other v Sweden-22283/21 (No Article 3-Prohibition of Torture: First Section) [2024] ECHR 402 to support that there is in general sufficiency of protection including from criminal gangs. There would be sufficiency of protection available for someone with the Appellant’s life experience. It would be reasonable for the Appellant to relocate for the same reason. In respect of a risk arising from the debt, there has been a passage of time during which there has been no contact by those to whom the debt is owed.
10. Ms Saifolahi said that there was no challenge to the evidence of Mr Korovilas which supports that the Appellant is reluctant to access protection and services that may be available to her. She said the Appellant’s age did not negate the other risk factors as found by the First-tier Tribunal. She drew my attention to factors in the Appellant’s favour. She referred to the factual matrix of the case; namely, that the Appellant has been trafficked, she escaped from the traffickers and those to whom she owed money. She said that the Dr Korovilas’ analysis of risk and the Appellant’s age in his addendum report is more complex than suggested by Mr Hulme. He says criminal gangs in Albania have various ways of exploiting people in order to recover outstanding debt, for example they will regularly engage in forced labour in order to recover outstanding debts.

Findings and reasons
11. I find that age is a neutral factor in the Appellant’s case. Dr Korovilas’ evidence has not been challenged by the Respondent. Moreover, it is not inconsistent with the background evidence generally or the findings in TD . I attach weight to his evidence. Dr Korovilas says that he characterises the criminal gangs as being run as a business where it is essential to recover unpaid debts and that the gangs are vengeful in the sense that they tend to punish the people who have defied them. In Dr Korovilas’ opinion the Appellant’s age does not relieve her from being targeted and further exploited. I accept that her age would not impact to any meaningful extent the risk of being re-trafficked for sexual exploitation. The Asylos report and the background evidence generally does not does not support that women outside the target group are not at risk of being re-trafficked. I note that the Appellant was sexuality exploited until 2021 when she was significantly older that the target age. I accept that the risks are greater for younger woman, but bearing in mind that the Appellant is in debt to traffickers, I find that her age does not negate any potential risk to her.
12. The Appellant escaped from traffickers four years ago. I do not find that the period of time since the Appellant’s escape is so significant so as support that her traffickers are no longer interested in her
13. Applying the risk factors in TD to my findings in respect of the Appellant’s age and the findings of the First-tier Tribunal, I find that the Appellant would be at risk of being re-trafficked and she would not be able to access sufficiency of protection. I accept that the background evidence Mr Hulme relied on establishes that in general there is sufficiency of protection for victims of trafficking and exploitation but in this case applying the risk factor in TD, I find that the Appellant would not be able to access this, bearing in mind she has low social status and economic standing, a low level of education, poor mental health including PTSD and no support network. I find that she is particularly vulnerable to trafficking or exploitation. I do not accept that maturity would assist her so as to mitigate the risk, bearing in mind the other risk factors present in the Appellant’s case.
14. The Appellant’s appeal is allowed on asylum grounds.

Joanna McWilliam

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

2 September 2025