Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-004526

First-tier Tribunal No: HU/65743/2024
PA/00501/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 6th February 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HOWARTH

Between

ET
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr. G. Brown, Counsel instructed by Legal Justice Solicitors
For the Respondent: Miss C. Newton, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 21 January 2026

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant and his wife are granted anonymity.

No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the appellant and his wife, likely to lead members of the public to identify the appellant and his wife. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS

1. The appellant is a national of Albania. He appeals with permission against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal to dismiss his appeal on protection and human rights grounds (“the Decision”).

2. The basis of the appellant’s claim is that he is a victim of trafficking and if he were returned to Albania he would be at risk of persecution or ill treatment from traffickers. The appellant also claims that his removal would be contrary to EX.1 of Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules and would constitute a disproportionate interference with his and his wife’s Article 8 ECHR family life rights.

3. The Secretary of State accepts that the appellant is a victim of trafficking but dismissed his asylum and protection claims on the basis that there is adequate state protection for male victims of trafficking in Albania, or alternatively the appellant could internally relocate within Albania. Regarding his family life, the Secretary of state is satisfied that he is in a genuine and subsisting relationship with his wife but rejected his application under EX.1 of Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules, on the basis that there we no insurmountable obstacles to the their family life continuing outside the United Kingdom and concluded that his removal from the United Kingdom would constitute a disproportionate interference with his and his wife’s Article 8 ECHR family life rights.

4. The First-tier Tribunal Judge (“the judge”) agreed with the Secretary of State and dismissed the appeal.

5. Permission to appeal was granted on five grounds. First, that the appellant’s wife (and sponsor) had provided medical evidence about an injury to her hand, in relation to which she had been awaiting surgery and had explained in her witness statement that she would be unable to manage without the assistance of her husband. The appellant submitted that the judge had erred by failing to have regard to this evidence and that it was material to the judge’s assessment of proportionality. Similarly, the second ground concerned the judge’s failure to have regard to medical evidence in relation to the appellant’s mental health, which likewise was materially relevant to the judge’s assessment of proportionality. The third ground of appeal concerned several other factors which the appellant claimed were materially relevant to the judge’s assessment of family life but had not been considered. The fourth ground was, again in the context of the proportionality assessment, that the judge had failed to have regard to the fact that the appellant was a victim of trafficking. The final ground of appeal was that the judge had erred in his application of TD and AD v Albania (Trafficked Women) CG [2016] UKUT 00092 and in finding that the appellant could turn to his mother for support if he were returned to Albania.

6. At the hearing before the Upper Tribunal, Miss Newton, on behalf of the Secretary of State conceded the appeal on the basis of the first and second grounds of appeal. Miss Newton observed that significant evidence had been served by the respondent in relation to his mental health but the judge had entirely omitted to have regard to the evidence in considering the issues relevant to the appellant and his wife’s family life. Likewise, in respect of the second ground of appeal, the judge had not considered the medical evidence in relation to his wife’s hand, her upcoming operation and the difficulty she would have in coping in the appellant’s absence, if he were required to leave the United Kingdom and make an application for entry clearance to return as her spouse. Miss Newton invited me to allow the error of law appeal and to remit the case to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing.

7. I also heard from Mr. Brown, on behalf of the appellant, who agreed with Miss Newton and indicated that he did not pursue the remaining grounds of appeal in view of the concessions made on behalf of the Secretary of State. Mr. Brown submitted that the evidence of the appellant’s mental health was not only relevant to the family life issues but also relevant to the asylum and protection claim because the appellant’s vulnerability on return should have been assessed with reference to the evidence surrounding his mental health. Miss Newton also agreed with this submission, and confirmed the Secretary of State’s position was that a de novo hearing in relation to all issues was appropriate.

8. As I indicated at the hearing, I accepted the concessions made by Miss Newton. Neither the evidence in relation to the appellant’s mental health, nor the evidence in relation to the injury to his wife’s hand and her upcoming operation and its impact were considered by the judge. The evidence was relevant to the judge’s assessments about family life, whether it would be proportionate to require the appellant to return to Albania. I am satisfied that had it been considered by the judge it might have made a difference to the outcome of the appeal because the judge might have concluded that EX.1 of Appendix FM was satisfied, or that, in all the circumstances it would be disproportionate to return his to Albania, particularly in view of the judge’s conclusion at [39] that it was not disproportionate to require the appellant to leave the United Kingdom and then make an application for entry clearance. A different Tribunal assessing the issues, adding into the mix the medical evidence could reach a different view about the result of this appeal. I also accept that, for the reasons given by Mr. Brown, the evidence regarding the appellant’s mental health may be relevant to the protection claim.

9. I have considered whether to retain the matter for remaking in the Upper Tribunal, in line with the general principle set out in statement 7 of the Senior President’s Practice Statement and AEB v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWCA Civ 1512 and Begum (Remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 00046 (IAC). However, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal because all matters will need to be considered de novo, updated medical evidence will have to be served, witness evidence will need to be heard and substantial findings of fact will need to be made.

Notice of Decision

1. The First-tier Tribunal decision involved the making of an error of law. Accordingly, the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 9 September 2025 is set aside.

2. The decision will be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal sitting in Manchester, but to be heard by a different judge. No findings of fact are preserved.

Kathryn Howarth

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

30 January 2026