UI-2025-005214
- Case title:
- Appellant name:
- Status of case: Unreported
- Hearing date:
- Promulgation date:
- Publication date:
- Last updated on:
- Country:
- Judges:
The decision
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-005214
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/52877/2024
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 1st April 2026
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SHERIDAN
Between
CS
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms Nnamani, Counsel instructed by Marvel Oaks Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms McKenzie, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
Heard at Field House on 4 March 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
1. By a decision issued on 23 January 2026 the Upper Tribunal (DUTJ Butler) set aside a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (FTTJ Bennett) and directed that the decision would be remade in the Upper Tribunal. The appeal now comes before me to remake the decision.
Background
2. The factual matrix is, to a significant extent, not in dispute. It is agreed that the appellant is a citizen of Honduras who, in 2022, was targeted for extortion by a powerful gang known as MS-13 (“the gang”). It is also accepted that appellant stopped paying the gang and faced consequences for this including shots being fired at him.
3. The FTT found that the appellant would face a real risk of harm in his home area from the gang, as there was a real risk the gang would target him and that the state would not be able to provide sufficient protection from the gang.
4. The FTT found that the Refugee Convention was not engaged because the appellant was not targeted for a Convention reason. The FTT therefore considered whether the appellant was entitled to protection on humanitarian protection grounds or under article 3 ECHR.
5. The FTT rejected the argument that the gang would pose a risk to the appellant anywhere in Honduras and found that it would be reasonable to expect him (with his family) to relocate internally to avoid those he fears. Accordingly, the FTT found that there was not a real risk of the appellant suffering serious harm on return to Honduras.
6. The FTT also found that removing the appellant would not breach article 8 ECHR.
7. In the error of law decision DUTJ Butler found that the FTT erred in respect of internal relocation and article 8 ECHR. DUTJ Butler directed that the appeal should remain in the Upper Tribunal where the sole issue would be internal relocation (within the framework of humanitarian protection and/or the ECHR as a Refugee Convention reason was not engaged) and article 8 ECHR.
Issues in dispute
8. The key issue in dispute is whether it is reasonable to expect the appellant, along with his wife and child (born in 2021), to relocate within Honduras. This requires the following questions to be addressed, applying the standard of reasonable likelihood:
a. First, is there a part of the Honduras where the appellant and his family would not face a risk of serious harm from the gang?
b. Second, if the answer to the first question is yes, is it reasonable to expect the appellant and his family to travel to and remain in that part of Honduras? To answer this question, I need to consider the appellant’s personal circumstances and the general circumstances in that part of Honduras.
9. Although there was some discussion of article 8 at the hearing, this was not the focus of the appellant’s case.
The respondents’ Country Policy and Information Note Honduras: Gangs, February 2026 (“the CPIN”) and other objective evidence
10. The submissions by Ms Nnamani and Ms McKenzie focused to a significant extent on the CPIN. I therefore consider it helpful to set out the most relevant sections of the CPIN.
11. The CPIN comments on the gang, describing it as one of the two most prominent gangs in the country. It is stated that the gang is mainly present in marginalised urban areas (para. 3.1.6 of the CPIN), where they have significant power (para. 3.1.7) but that their influence does not generally extend outside areas of control (para. 2.1.10).
12. In para. 3.1.2 it is stated that one of the categories of person likely to be at risk when living in an area controlled by the gang is “someone who has not complied with a gang’s rules or demands (including someone who resists extortion), or otherwise openly opposes the gang”.
13. In section 5 of the CPIN internal relocation is considered. It is stated:
5.1.1 Where a person has a well-founded fear of persecution or serious harm from an organised criminal group, they are in general likely to be able to internally relocate to escape that risk. Some people may be tracked by a gang after a perceived betrayal, leaving the gang, or if they have information about the gang. Decision makers must therefore consider the profile of the person, their previous experiences, the reasons why the gang has an interest in them, and the size, capability and intent of the gang they claim to fear.
5.1.2 Honduras is about half the size of the UK. Approximately 60% of its around 10 million population live in urban areas, with Tegucigalpa and San Pedro Sula being the cities with the highest populations (see Geography and population). Barrio 18 and MS-13 are mainly present in marginalised urban areas on the Honduran mainland, particularly in Tegucigalpa and San Pedro Sula and their surroundings, and in the cities of Choloma, La Ceiba, and Tela. They are reportedly also expanding into rural, coastal, and border regions, where other criminal organisations operate drug trafficking routes. The Bay Islands and Roatán reportedly experience less gang activity than the mainland (see Location of OCGs, Violence and homicides).
5.1.3 By using the distribution of homicides and extortion as proxies, available information supports that there are parts of the country where gangs do not appear to have control, or exert influence: according to official sources, in 2024, 19% of municipalities had no recorded homicides, while 74% had recorded between 0 and 8 homicides (see Location of OCGs, Impact of state of emergency). The prevalence of extortion also varies by department (see Extortion). However, low levels of reported violence may reflect a lack of gang influence, or in contrast, stable control by a particular group which reduces overt violence (see Territorial control). Decision makers should avoid inferring control solely from these indicators and should rely instead on all relevant, locality-specific information where available.
5.1.4 Sources reported that a person may be tracked by gangs and criminal groups, due to communication networks between their different factions in different parts of the country. People who are reportedly more likely to be tracked are: those who the group believes have betrayed them; those with important information about the gang; and former gang members. Family members of these groups may also be tracked (see Tracking of persons by gangs).
5.1.5 Freedom of movement in Honduras is generally possible. However, it can be restricted in gang-controlled territories. Some gangs establish roadblocks in their territories and limit residents’ ability to move from one area to another. Movement of those within gang territory is monitored. Transport companies reportedly cut their hours of operation and avoid gang-controlled communities, which makes it difficult for residents to travel to school and work (see Freedom of movement).
14. The Bay Islands and Roatan were identified by Ms McKenzie as locations to which the appellant could relocate. I was taken to the following sections of the CPIN where reference is made to these areas:
8.4.2 Citing correspondence with sources from 2022, the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) noted, regarding gang presence on the island of Roatán:
‘In an interview with the Research Directorate, an independent researcher based in the US whose work focuses on MS-13 and Barrio 18 in northern Central America indicated that there are “very rare cases” of criminal groups in Roatán, and that there is no recent published information regarding a presence of MS-13 or Barrio 18 on the island … In correspondence with the Research Directorate, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Toronto who focuses on violence and transnational gangs in Latin America stated that MS-13 and Barrio 18 have a presence in Roatán, but on “a small scale,” and that the island is a “refuge” for gang members and leaders who are evading the police and/or rival gang members … The Associate Professor of IR [International Relations[footnote 37]] noted that MS-13 and Barrio 18 “operate mostly” in mainland Honduras, and that there is “no concrete evidence of their organized presence [in] Roatán” (Associate Professor of IR 19 Oct. 2022).
10.1.8 However, the same source also noted that: ‘Roatán and the Bay Islands are geographically separate from the mainland and experience lower crime rates even when compared with other Caribbean islands.’
10.1.9 Citing correspondence with sources from 2022, the IRB noted, regarding gang activities on the island of Roatan: ‘Sources note … that “overall crime rates” on Roatán “seem to be lower than in most of Honduras” (Associate Professor of IR 19 Oct. 2022) … In an interview with the Research Directorate, an assistant professor of security studies at New Jersey City University who focuses on gangs, organized crime, and drug trafficking in northern Central America stated that in general, Roatán is a “safe and quiet place” that is considered a “safe haven” from gangs, including MS-13 and Barrio 18 (Assistant Professor of security studies 13 Oct. 2022).’
15. Footnote 38 of the CPIN is a report by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (“the Canadian Report”). It states that Roatan is a “small island in Honduras with a population of approximately 115,000 people”. The following is said about individuals being tracked:
Sources indicated that criminal groups are able to track individuals who move from mainland Honduras to Roatán by monitoring social media networks (Independent researcher 17 Oct. 2022; Assistant Professor of political science 16 Oct. 2022). Sources further noted that individuals can be found through "sightings on the street" (Independent researcher 17 Oct. 2022) or by word of mouth since Roatán is "very small" (Assistant Professor of political science 16 Oct. 2022). The Associate Professor of IR stated that "[p]ersonal networks are tight and strong," which makes it possible for criminal groups to "'follow' the movements of particular people" (Associate Professor of IR 19 Oct. 2022). According to the Assistant Professor of political science, individuals "more likely to be tracked" are current or former gang members (Assistant Professor of political science 16 Oct. 2022). The independent researcher noted that gangs track individuals who have "important information" about the gang, or if the individual has "violated gang rules" (Independent researcher 17 Oct. 2022). The Associate Professor of IR stated that individuals who have betrayed or "tried to leave" gangs "have been tracked down and killed, both inside and outside Honduras" (Associate Professor of IR 19 Oct. 2022).
16. I was not taken to other objective evidence, although Ms Nnamani relied on an earlier CPIN. I have not needed to refer to this in my decision.
The key evidence at the hearing
17. The appellant gave evidence through an interpreter.
18. Ms McKenzie asked the appellant why he could not relocate to the Bay Islands and Roatan, which are locations identified in para. 5.1.2 of the CPIN as experiencing less gang activity than the mainland. The appellant responded that these are very expensive areas where millionaires live. He also stated that it would not be possible to just move there and it would not be safe.
19. Ms McKenzie asked what work the appellant has been doing in the UK. He responded that he works in construction. She asked if he could undertake construction work in the Bay Islands. His response was that he did not understand; that he cannot just move there; and that he did not know anything about the area.
Submissions
20. Ms McKenzie argued that the appellant can relocate to the Bay Islands and Roatán, given what is said in para. 5.1.2 of the CPIN. She also noted that in the CPIN these areas are said to be geographically separate and have lower crime rates (para. 10.1.8 of the CPIN). She also highlighted para. 10.1.9 where an interview is recorded that describes Bay Islands and Roatan as safe and quiet. She also submitted, relying on para. 8.4.2 of the CPIN, that there was no evidence of individuals being tracked to the Bay Islands and Roatan.
21. Ms Nnamani noted that para. 8.4.2 of the CPIN refers to the Bay Islands and Roatán as a refuge for gang members – indicating that gang members are present on the islands. She drew attention to the Canadian Report which indicates that individuals who move to Roatan can be tracked by gangs. Ms Nnamani also focused attention on the aspects of the CPIN concerning corruption and inadequacy of state protection.
Analysis
22. I consider there to be a reasonable likelihood that, following his return to Honduras, the appellant will suffer serious harm from the gang even if he relocates to the Bay Islands and Roatan. Applying the standard of reasonable likelihood, I am not satisfied that there is anywhere in Honduras that is safe for the appellant. My reasoning is as follows:
a. The Canadian Report indicates that gangs may track individuals who violated gang rules. It is accepted by the respondent that the appellant resisted extortion from the gang. It follows from this that it is reasonably likely the appellant is an individual the gang would be motivated to track and punish, as someone who broke their rules.
b. The gang is one of the two most powerful gangs in Honduras. It has significant reach throughout the country.
c. The CPIN indicates that although not active the Bay Islands and Roatan, gang members are likely to be present.
d. The Bay Islands and Roatan have small populations. In the light of what is said in the Canadian Report, I consider it reasonably likely that if the appellant and his family, who have no previous connection to or knowledge of the Bay Islands and Roatan, move to the area this will be noticed and spoken about in the local community. One of the reasons this is likely to occur is that the appellant will need to seek work and in doing so (for example, by approaching people working in the construction industry – which is the field where he has some skill and experience) he is reasonably likely to draw attention to himself. I consider it to be reasonably likely that people in the local community will enquire about (and learn) where he is from.
e. It is reasonably likely, in my view, that members of (or those connected to) the gang will (i) learn of the appellant’s arrival on Bay Islands and Roatan through the local community; (ii) communicate about this with the gang in the appellant’s home area; and (iii) become aware that the appellant is someone who violated the gang’s rules and fled from the gang.
f. In the event that the gang learns of the appellant’s background (ie someone who resisted extortion and fled from the gang), it is reasonably likely that they will cause him serious harm.
23. I therefore consider there to be a reasonable likelihood that the appellant will be unable to avoid serious harm from the gang by relocating to the Bay Islands and Roatán. The respondent did not propose that there was anywhere else in Honduras to which the appellant could safely relocate. Accordingly, I allow the appeal on humanitarian protection/article 3 ECHR grounds.
Notice of Decision
24. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal was set aside by DUTJ Butler. I now remake the decision and allow the appeal on the basis that (i) removal of the appellant would breach the UK’s obligations in relation to persons eligible for a grant of humanitarian protection; and (ii) removal would violate article 3 ECHR and therefore would be unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
D. Sheridan
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
31.3.2026