Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-003948
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/62525/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 13th of October 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BUTLER

Between

PB
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms S. Nwachuku, counsel, instructed by SMA Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms N. Nolan, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 5 October 2026

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant and her mother are 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 and / or her family members. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant is a citizen of Albania in her mid-twenties. She arrived in the UK in 2023 and claimed asylum the following day. Her protection claim is based on risks of trafficking. In summary, she states that her mother borrowed money for her to access medical treatment and the individuals who had lent her mother money subsequently forced her into prostitution. She therefore fled to the UK with her mother.
2. The Appellant’s appeal was heard by FTTJ Sweet (‘the Judge’) on 20 May 2026. The Judge’s determination was promulgated two days later. The Judge found that the Appellant was not credible (noting that her mother had made an asylum claim which had been refused and had not attended her daughter’s tribunal hearing to give evidence). The Judge further found that there would be sufficient protection for the Appellant in Albania and could relocate internally.
3. Permission to appeal was granted by FTTJ Thapar on 17 July 2026, noting that “the decision does not identify with any particularity which aspects of the Appellant's evidence were rejected, nor the reasons for rejecting them”. Subsequently, UTJ Canavan granted anonymity on 26 August 2026.
4. I heard this appeal on 5 October 2026. Ms Nwachuku and Ms Nolan represented the parties and I thank them both for their helpful submissions.
Grounds of appeal
5. The Appellant advances a single, overarching ground of appeal, namely that the Judge failed to provide adequate reasons for his findings and / or failed to engage with material evidence. The grounds argue:
“The decision contains little more than a summary of the procedural history and background evidence and does not demonstrate meaningful engagement with the Appellant’s evidence, documentary material, or submissions advanced on her behalf”
Analysis
6. I agree that the Judge’s short determination fails to provide adequate reasons or show that anxious scrutiny has been given to relevant material before the Judge. The reasoning is very short (set against a permission bundle of over 800 pages)
7. The Judge rejects the Appellant’s credibility with extremely brief reasoning. The essentially sole reason given at §15 for rejecting the Appellant’s claim on credibility grounds was the failure of the Appellant’s mother to attend the hearing (repeated at §22). I accept that the Appellant’s mother was a significant witness and that her failure – without any explanation – to attend the hearing to give evidence was a matter which weakened the Appellant’s claim and on which the Tribunal could reasonably place weight. However, there is no requirement for a person seeking asylum to provide corroboration of their account. Imposing such a requirement is a legal error, as recognised in MAH (Egypt) v SSHD [2023] EWCA Civ 216 at §86. The burden of proof is of course on the person seeking international protection and that a failure to provide evidence which could reasonably have been expected to be provided with no good reason for the failure may be a factor in a holistic analysis of credibility (see SB (Sri Lanka) v SSHD [2019] EWCA Civ 160, §46(iv)). When reading the Judge’s determination, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that he treated the absence of oral evidence from the Appellant’s mother as a determinative feature, essentially requiring corroboration. This was not a holistic analysis of credibility.
8. I consider that the error of law in the Judge’s analysis of the Appellant’s credibility is sufficient to dispose of this appeal in her favour as the Judge could not undertake a lawful, fact-sensitive assessment of the Appellant’s ability to seek protection or relocate internally without first assessing her credibility and making sustainable factual findings about the Appellant’s circumstances in the event of a return. Nevertheless, I also accept the Appellant’s submission that the Judge failed to give adequate reasons and / or grapple with relevant evidence in relation to the issues of internal relocation and sufficiency of protection. In relation to protection, the Judge simply accepted at §19 that protection was available because this was “confirmed in CPIN [sic] that such protection is available”. There are a number of errors in this analysis:
a. First, a Home Office CPIN is not binding on the Tribunal. It is a statement of administrative policy (Roba (OLF - MB confirmed) Ethiopia CG [2022] UKUT 1 (IAC) at §84) which also sets out relevant country evidence, usually from a range of independent sources.
b. Second, what was binding on the Tribunal (absent good reason to depart from it) was the Country Guidance case of TD and AD (trafficked women) CG [2016] UKUT 92 (IAC). That case makes clear that an individual may, as a result of their individual circumstances, be unable to access sufficient protection and / or internally relocate within Albania (although protection and internal relocation are generally available). While the Judge referred to TD, I do not accept that adequate reasons were given for concluding that, notwithstanding the Appellant’s accepted risk factors, she could seek protection and internally relocate.
c. Third, the Home Office CPIN regarding human trafficking (the relevant version as at the date of the hearing was 16.0, dated July 2024; it has since been updated) reflects the judgment in TD, namely that protection will not be effective in every case and that some female trafficking victims may not be able to relocate (although it concludes that generally relocation is reasonable). Therefore, I do not accept that the Judge correctly characterised the CPIN in the judgment.
9. Ms Nolan invited me to find that any error in relation to the Appellant’s credibility was not material, given the Judge’s findings in relation to internal relocation and sufficiency of protection. I do not accept that submission. Both internal relocation and sufficiency of protection are fact-sensitive questions, which cannot be safely determined in the absence of clear findings about the Appellant’s credibility and the underlying facts of their claim, including the nature of any risk and the circumstances in which an individual may return to their country of origin.
10. I therefore consider that the Judge’s determination contained material errors of law.
11. At the end of the hearing, I gave a brief judgment in favour of the Appellant, explaining that I would provide fuller written reasons in due course. Regarding disposal of the appeal, both parties invited me to remit this matter to the First-tier Tribunal, which I hereby direct. Ms Nolan and Ms Nwachuku discussed the possibility of the Appellant’s appeal being linked to her mother’s, which is understood to be pending in the First-tier Tribunal. I do not consider that it would be appropriate for me to tie the First-tier Tribunal’s hands and therefore any application for further case management directions should be made to the First-tier Tribunal following remittal.
Notice of Decision
The appeal is allowed.
The Judge’s decision is set aside. This matter shall be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing with no factual findings preserved.

Miranda Butler

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

6 October 2026