Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-005120
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/61682/2024
LP/03006/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

9th August 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LODATO

Between

FL
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Hamza, counsel
For the Respondent: Ms Rushforth, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Cardiff Civil Justice Centre on 22 July 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
Introduction
1. I have decided to maintain the anonymity order originally made in these proceedings by the First-tier Tribunal (‘the FtT’) because the underlying claim involves international protection issues in that FL has been found to be at risk of serious harm on return to Albania. The appellant also suffers with serious mental health conditions. In reaching this decision, I am mindful of the fundamental principle of open justice, but I am satisfied, taking FL’s case at its highest for these purposes, that the potential risks outweigh the rights of the public to know his identity.
2. This decision should be read in conjunction with the previous error of law decision to allow the Secretary of State’s appeal against the decision of the FtT. The matter came before me to remake the underlying appeal decision.
Background
3. The appellant’s appeal was allowed in the FtT on humanitarian protection grounds on account of the real risk posed by his father who would be motivated to once again exploit his son by forcing him to beg. The appeal against this decision was allowed because the judge had erred in law in how the critical issues of sufficiency of protection and internal relocation were assessed. The appellant’s Article 8 ground of appeal on private life grounds remained to be decided.
Appeal to the Upper Tribunal
4. At the remaking hearing, Ms Rushforth conceded that the appeal should be allowed on Article 8 human rights grounds due to the strength of the appellant’s case, as it now stands, that he would encounter very significant obstacles to integration. In light of the respondent’s position on the Article 8 grounds of appeal, Mr Hamza applied to withdraw the humanitarian protection ground of appeal.
Discussion
5. I am satisfied that the Secretary of State’s concession of the appeal on Article 8 private life grounds is well-judged and was the result of a sensible reappraisal of the respondent’s case upon consideration of the strong fresh evidence from a country expert and, in particular, a balanced and impressive report from the appellant’s therapist as to how he would be likely to fare in the future. I am satisfied that the appellant, who arrived in the UK as an unaccompanied child, will encounter very significant obstacles to integration on account of his complex mental health needs, which are currently being addressed with an intense course of treatment, and the lack of a meaningful support network in Albania. This finding renders the refusal decision a disproportionate interference with the appellant’s Article 8 private life rights.
6. I permit the appellant’s application to withdraw the humanitarian protection ground of appeal.
Notice of Decision
The appeal is allowed on Article 8 private life grounds. The humanitarian protection ground of appeal is treated as withdrawn.

Paul Lodato

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

29 July 2026