Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-005166

First-tier Tribunal: PA/52867/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 30th of January 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE J F W PHILLIPS

Between

N M
(Anonymity decision made)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr M Allison, Counsel
For the Respondent: Ms S Ahmed, Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 8 January 2026

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant appeals with permission against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 30 September 2025 dismissing his appeal against the Respondent’s decision refusing his protection and human rights claim.
Background
2. The Appellant a citizen of Albania claimed, in summary, that he was at risk on return to Albania firstly from his abusive father and secondly from people who had enslaved him to force him to repay his father’s gambling debt.
The appeal to the First-tier Tribunal
3. The Appellant’s appeal against the Respondent’s decision was heard by First-tier Tribunal Judge Graves in an oral hearing on 17 September 2025. The Judge found that the Appellant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or risk of serious harm on a return to Albania or that there were very significant obstacles to his reintegration.
The appeal to the Upper Tribunal
4. The Appellant was granted permission to appeal the decision by First-tier Tribunal Judge Elliott on 6 November 2025. Judge Elliott found that the failure of the Judge to refer to the evidence contained in a local authority “current circumstances” form pre-dating the refusal of the Appellant’s claim raised an arguable ground that the Judge failed to consider material evidence.
Additional grounds
5. Mr Allison for the Appellant asked for permission to rely on two additional grounds of appeal. Firstly, a failure by the Judge to apply paragraph 4 of the Qualification Directive (paragraph 339K of the Immigration Rules). Secondly a failure to have regard to material evidence regarding Convention reason, sufficiency of protection and internal relocation. Ms Ahmed said that having had sufficient time to prepare the Secretary of State’s response she did not oppose the application. Accordingly, I granted permission.
The hearing
6. Mr Allison referred to the first ground of appeal drafted by Ms King. The Judge had failed to consider the local authority’s current circumstances form. It was dated 11 December 2023 and as the Appellant entered the United Kingdom on 23 August 2022 and the hearing was not until September 2025 it showed consistency in his account of having no contact with his parents. The Judge makes no reference to it and the assessment was based solely on the Appellant’s oral evidence. The second ground raises issues relating to Article 4 QD (paragraph 339K). The Judge had the report of Dr Singh and the Appellant’s evidence was that he had been repeatedly threatened and assaulted. This should have been the starting point. The Judge should have made a clear finding giving reasons why having faced serious harm in the past the Appellant weas no longer in danger. The Judge indicates at paragraph 48 that Mr Allot’s submission in this regard had some force but makes no findings. The third ground stands with the second. The country expert report was clearly considered by the Judge and is referred to in the context of the assessment of PTSD but it is not addressed in terms of sufficiency of protection. David Neale’s report is not addressed at all. Grounds 2 and 3 considered cumulatively go to the heart of the decision.
7. Ms Ahmed said that the First-tier Tribunal decision was good and detailed. The Judge did not find the Appellant to be credible and gives a detailed analysis with reasons. I was referred to paragraphs 34-39 and 47. The current circumstances form is not independent evidence. It is the evidence of the Appellant given to the local authority worker. So far as ground two is concerned the Judge was plainly aware of the issues as set out in the decision. The findings from paragraph 40-46 deal with the complaint made and risk is clearly considered. So far as ground three is concerned the Judge does not need to list all the evidence considered. The Judge clearly looked at matters in detail. The report from David Neale is not an expert report, it is an opinion.
Findings – Error of Law
8. I have carefully considered the decision of the First-tier Tribunal and in particular the evidence of the Appellant and the Judge’s assessment of that evidence. Having done so I am satisfied that ground one has absolutely no merit. The decision (at paragraph 30) makes it clear that the Judge assessed all the evidence in the round. There is no requirement to identify each and every item of evidence that was considered and to expect judges to do so is wholly unrealistic. The Judge takes full account of the Appellant’s age, inexperience and the abuse he endured at the hands of his traffickers. The Judge considered, and it is apparent from the decision that the Judge very carefully considered, the Appellant’s claim to not have been in contact with his family and rejected it. In doing so the Judge again referred to “all the other evidence and the positive findings and features of this case” (paragraph 34). As Ms Ahmed submitted paragraphs 34-37 give extremely clear reasoning and shows why the Judge did not believe the Appellant. I am satisfied that the Judge gave this credibility issue the most anxious scrutiny. Ms Ahmed’s submission, that the local authority form merely repeated what the Appellant told the local authority is absolutely correct. It was not independent evidence and the failure to refer specifically to it in the decision makes no difference at all to the conclusion reached. There is no error of law.
9. Ground two refers to paragraph 4 of the Qualification Directive as mirrored in paragraph 339K of the Immigration Rules and asserts, in terms, that it being accepted that the Appellant had been subjected to persecution or serious harm in the past, this should be the starting point for the consideration of whether there would be a real risk of the same happening on return. In my judgement the decision does just that. At paragraph 40 the Judge makes a clear finding that the Appellant’s father was abusive and that the Appellant was forced to work in June to July 2022 to repay his father’s gambling debt and that during this time he was beaten. The decision then goes on from paragraphs 42 to 53 to examine the Appellant’s circumstances and to explain in detail why it is not accepted ether that the Appellant is at risk from his immediate or wider family (paragraph 47) or from his traffickers (paragraph 51). The grounds in this respect are disingenuous seeking to draw a distinction between
“relying on the absence of evidence provided by A to establish an ongoing risk, rather than assessing whether there were good reasons to consider that the serious harm would not be repeated”.
In the first place the absence of evidence of ongoing risk is a good reason to consider that serious harm would not be repeated and in the second place and in any event the decision at paragraphs 49-51 explains in detail why the Judge finds that there is no ongoing risk. There is no error of law.
10. Mr Allison accepted that ground three would stand or fall with ground two. In any event the finding is respect of risk means that convention reason, sufficiency of protection and internal relocation are not relevant is isolation.
11. My conclusion is that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal is reveals no material error of law and I uphold the decision.

Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve the making of a material error on a point of law. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal stands.

Judge J F W Phillips
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal

22 January 2026