Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-003333
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/58960/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision and Reasons Issued:
On 11 March 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MAHMOOD
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PAUL LEWIS

Between

UP
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms. Khan, counsel instructed by Greater Manchester Immigration Aid
For the Respondent: Mr. Tan, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Manchester Civil Justice Centre on 26th January 2026

Order Regarding Anonymity

Anonymity was ordered by the Upper Tribunal. No application to discharge was made. It remains in force in the terms below.

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. The parties may apply on notice to discharge this order.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant is a citizen of Albania born in 2005. He had appealed against the respondent’s decision to refuse his international protection and human rights claim. A judge of the First-tier Tribunal had dismissed his appeal by way of a decision dated 3rd September 2025. The appellant had sought and was granted permission to appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal.
2. At an error of law hearing before Upper Tribunal Judge Landes on 15th October 2025, the decision of the First-tier Tribunal [‘FTT’] Judge was set aside with findings of fact preserved. A copy of that decision is appended as Annex A. The remaking hearing before us is limited to consideration of whether the appellant requires humanitarian protection. His asylum claim before the judge was dismissed as the appellant was not found to be a member of a particular social group. There is no appeal against that decision.
The hearing
3. At the error of Law hearing, Upper Tribunal Judge Landes directed the service of ‘updating evidence’ for this remaking hearing. Pursuant to that direction, the appellant relies on further written evidence in the form of a letter from Ms. Keiher, dated 6th January 2026 in which Ms. Keiher confirms that the appellant is accessing talking therapies and that such therapy is extremely helpful to him.
4. No objection was taken by the respondent to the evidence from Ms. Keiher and we admit the same as relevant in accordance with Rule 15(2) of The Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008.
5. The appellant did not attend the hearing. We had regard to the parties written and oral submissions and refer to them so far as it is necessary for us to do so below.
The law and issues to determine
6. The issue for us to determine is whether the appellant should be granted humanitarian protection because substantial grounds have been shown for believing that if he was returned to Albania, he would face a real risk of suffering serious harm and he is unable, or, owing to such risk, unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country. The parties agree that the risk of harm is the risk of being re-trafficked by the same or different criminal gang.
7. It is agreed that if there is insufficient protection available to this appellant, the option of internal relocation would not be reasonable for this appellant.
8. We start from the point that there is generally sufficient protection in Albania for the victims of trafficking. Although there may be systemic sufficiency of protection, an individual appellant may face a real risk of suffering serious harm if his circumstances give rise to a need for additional protection, see AW (sufficiency of protection) Pakistan [2011] UKUT 31.
Preserved findings and relevant factual background.
9. The appellant entered the UK aged 17. He is now 20 years old. As a child in Albania, he was forced to sell drugs by a criminal gang. He owes that gang money because he was subjected to a robbery whilst working for them.
10. The starting point for our determination is the findings of fact made by the FTT which were preserved by Upper Tribunal Judge Landes set out at [29] of the FTT decision. These include:
(i) there was a reasonable degree of likelihood that if exposed to the same circumstances and in the absence of other considerations, the appellant would be exploited again;
(ii) the risk to the appellant comes from those to whom he owes a debt and a wider risk of re-trafficking from others.
The appellant’s vulnerability
11. The appellant suffers from mental health issues which make him vulnerable to re-trafficking. The appellant was examined by a psychologist Catrin Lewis in February and March 2025. He was assessed as suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder [‘PTSD’]; Major Depressive Disorder [‘MDD’] and Generalized Anxiety Disorder [‘GAD’]. The considered opinion of Ms. Lewis was that the appellant’s previous experiences of coercion, threats, forced involvement in criminal activity combined with his current psychological distress ‘place him at a heightened risk of further exploitation’.
12. In the UK, the appellant is supported by social services to promote independence and psychological well-being.
13. The FTT judge’s findings as to the evidence of Ms. Keiher and Ms. Lewis were also preserved by Upper Tribunal Judge Landes.
Submissions and findings
14. In reaching our assessment we must undertake a holistic assessment of the appellant’s circumstances.
15. We apply the factors set out in the country guidance case, TD and AD (Trafficked Women) GC [2016] UKUT 92 (IAC). The parties agreed that although TD and AD, dealt specifically with the issue of trafficked women from Albania, the considerations set out therein are relevant matters for us to consider as part of holistic assessment of risk faced by an individual appellant. The specific matters set out in TD and AD are addressed at [16] to [] below.
The appellant’s age
16. The appellant is now 20 years of age. He is a single man with no dependent children. He has completed his education. He was 17 years old at the time of his exploitation.
The appellant’s education, social status and economic standing of family: The support network available
17. The appellant is from a relatively poor socio-economic background. Ms Khan submits that the appellant’s circumstances mean that he is likely to be under considerable pressure to bring an income to support his family and therefore place his at risk of re-trafficking.
18. In response, Mr. Tan submits:
(i) The appellant’s brothers were able to find employment in Albania which was not linked to trafficking;
(ii) The appellant’s undertaking of employment was not at the cost of the appellant being able complete his secondary education up to the age of 17 years;
(iii) In the UK, the appellant continues to be enrolled in further education as of January 2026. The skills he is acquiring there may assist with his potential ability to find employment on return;
(iv) The appellant has previous work experience as a labourer;
(v) The factors above, together with the education and language skills gained in the UK provides a platform for future employment away from trafficking.
19. The appellant has an extensive family network including parents, uncles, aunts, grandparent and cousins with whom he remains in contact. Mr. Tan submits that they have provided the appellant support in the UK and there is no reason why they could not do so again on his return to Albania.
20. Whilst the support network exists we must examine how effective such network would be in diverting the appellant from the risk of re-trafficking. Ms. Keiher’s [report 18th December 2024 §27 et seq] is of the opinion that the appellant is protective of his family and would be reticent to share information for fear of reprisals. This has the potential to reduce the effectiveness of the support network available to him.
21. Further, the appellant feels ‘cultural pressure’ to be a ‘strong man’ [Keiher ,§29]. In so far as the appellant shows fortitude, ‘it was his desire to survive and support his family that put him in danger in the first place’ [Keiher ,§36]. Part of the work being done with the appellant in the UK is to build and embed trust in authorities and agencies generally and specifically those who might protect him from further exploitation.
22. Given the evidence of Ms. Keiher, we find that the appellant’s family network would be only partially effective at preventing him being re-trafficked.
Area of origin
23. The appellant originates from the north of Albania from the village of Nikoliq, in the city of Has. In her written submissions, Ms Kahn referred us to the evidence of Professor Edlira Haxhiymeri in TD and AD was that the North had very traditional culture that exacerbated the problems victims of trafficking faced, referring specifically to [52] and [111] of TD and AD.
24. Mr. Tan submits that such submissions are misplaced because the evidence and comments made were in the context of the position of women, the prevalence of abuse within the family and their social exclusion. We agree: None of those factors apply to this appellant on the evidence before us.
25. The appellant’s area of origin is relevant to his access to health care to which we refer in more detail below.

The appellant’s (mental) health
26. In his written submissions Mr. Tan submits that we should give limited weight to the medical evidence before us. He submits in terms, that the appellant is making progress and there is no contemporaneous assessment from Ms. Lewis or a similar therapist setting out the appellant’s current condition and progress. For that reason, we reduce slightly the weight give to the appellant’s medical evidence because it is now ten months old.
27. In assessing the evidence of the appellant’s vulnerability and mental health, we remind ourselves that the appellant remains in the UK with leave granted by the respondent on 3rd September 2025 for two years until September 2027. In a ‘conclusive grounds’ decision the Competent Authority recognizes the appellant as a Victim of Trafficking or VOT and that his stay in the UK is necessary… [our emphasis] ‘to assist your recovery from any physical or psychological harm caused by your exploitation’.
28. The parties agree that we should give due weight to this decision by the Competent Authority. To that extent Mr. Tan submits that the appellant has some degree of assurance until September 2027 which will enable him to continue to receive therapeutic treatment. At that point, the appellant would be aged 22 years when his leave to remain expires.
29. Our concern with that proposed approach is that we would fall into error if we were to adopt it: The date for the assessment of the risk of harm posed to the appellant is the date of the hearing, not September 2027, when the appellant’s leave to remain in the UK expires.
30. The appellant’s mental health conditions make him more vulnerable to exploitation. Untreated, he remains resistant to support from authorities which exist to protect and support victims of trafficking.
31. As to the appellant’s likely response to further pressure or influence from criminal gangs we note that the appellant never directly approached the Albanian police for their assistance. We accept Mr. Tan’s submission that his family have not suffered reprisals or faced other problems in the absence of the appellant and that the appellant, with the support of his family could seek the assistance of the police – if or course, the appellant has shared with them what has occurred.
32. We find that the appellant is making progress with his treatment. He is living in supported accommodation, maturing and demonstrating some ability to manage his own care. The report of Ms Lewis confirms that the appellant maintains a reticence and mistrust of authorities and others who may to access those services.
33. Although the appellant is making progress in overcoming the challenges that he faces and improving his resilience this, in due course, may assist with his ability to identify risk and withstand some pressure to become involved with either the same gang or an equivalent. The work is ongoing and until complete the appellant remains vulnerable to exploitation.
An assessment of the background evidence
34. We have considered carefully the external evidence which sets out the support in Albania available to the appellant. We start from the preserved finding that there generally is sufficiency of protection. The assessment of the appellant in this case is that, given he remains reluctant to seek protection.
35. Relying on the Country Policy and Information Note: Albania mental healthcare, version 3.0 January 2025 [the ‘CPIN’], the respondent submits that mental health care is available in Albania. This includes access to psychological services funded through international assistance.
36. Mr. Tan submits that a reluctance to seek protection does not mean that it is unavailable. In so far as the appellant’s ongoing health needs are a barrier to him recognising the need for help and thereafter accessing it, again Mr. Tan submits that there are education and training programmes available to victims of trafficking with mental health care support available either face-to-face or online. Specifically in the appellant’s case, treatment for PTSD and anxiety are available at public facilities in Albania.
37. Both §2.4.5 and §4.3.2 of the CPIN outline the support available from the UHC Mother Teresa hospital in Tirana. Whilst the hospital ‘draws patients from all over Albania for tertiary level treatment’ we are not satisfied that such support would be available to the appellant in northern Albania or readily accessible to him from there.
Conclusions
38. The decision we reach is finely balanced. We have carefully considered the rival arguments and the background material alongside the caselaw Our conclusions reflect the circumstances of this specific appellant.
39. We place weight on the assessment of the Competent authority that the appellant’s stay in the UK is necessary to assist in his recovery.
40. We find there is not sufficient protection available to this appellant in Albania. The appellant remains vulnerable to exploitation as he recovers from significant mental health challenges. He was a child when he arrived in the UK. The personal network to which he would be returned together with the support, such as it is from the Albanian authorities would not – at this stage – provide this appellant with sufficient protection from exploitation.

Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal contained a material error of law.
We remake the decision.
We allow the appeal on humanitarian protection grounds.

Paul Lewis

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

9th March 2026