United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

A black background with a black square Description automatically generated with medium confidence

 

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER	Case No: UI-2024-002825
	First-tier Tribunal No: PA/56668/2023

 

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

 

On 25 ^th of February 2025

 

Before

 

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RASTOGI

 

Between

 

VK

(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)

Appellant

and

 

The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Respondent

Representation :

For the Appellant: Mr M. Saleem of Malik and Malik Solicitors

For the Respondent: Mr E. Tufan, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

 

Heard at Field House on 13 January 2025

 

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.              The appellant is a 36 year old citizen of Albania who appeals the respondent's refusal of the her protection and human rights claims on 3 September 2023.

2.              On 21 October 2024, the appeal came before me for the error of law hearing. By way of my decision sealed on 29 November 2024 I found an error of law in the decision of the First-tier Tribunal which I then set aside ("the EOL decision"). Various facts were preserved and I directed that the Upper Tribunal retain the appeal for re-making. It was that hearing which came before me.

3.              I had the benefit of a 370 page hearing bundle ("HB") which included some updating background country evidence admitted without objection pursuant to Rule 15(2A) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008. I heard evidence from the appellant with the benefit of an Albanian speaking interpreter. I heard submissions on behalf of both parties and at, the end of the hearing, I reserved my decision.

The Background

4.              The appellant's protection claim was founded on her fear of returning to Albania with her young child. By way of a conclusive grounds decision from the Competent Authority dated 30 December 2022 the appellant was found to be a victim of trafficking ("VOT") having been trafficked from Albania and forced into prostitution between October 2018 and January 2019.

5.              The context of her departure from Albania was that her father arranged for her to travel to the United Kingdom to marry a man named AH and it was from there that she ended up in the hands of agents/traffickers. The marriage to AH did not come to pass. She is now a single mother to a child aged 5 who was born in the UK very prematurely (26 weeks). She fears being re-trafficked or subjected to serious harm on return either from her father, her traffickers or AH's family as she is without family support, and there is insufficient protection for her in Albania, even if she were to relocate.

6.              The respondent's refusal was on the basis that, although she accepted the appellant is a VOT and therefore a member of a particular social group ("PSG"), there was sufficient protection for her in Albania to which she could avail herself given her level of education, the provision of shelters and mental health treatment there. The respondent also decided she could reasonably and safely relocate to one of the cities such as Tirana, Durres or Elbasan and this would neither be unduly harsh upon her or present very significant obstacles to her reintegration in Albania.

7.              The appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. By way of a decision dated 2 May 2024 the First-tier Tribunal judge ("the judge") noted that the appellant's credibility was not challenged [17]. At [25] he noted the appellant feared persecution from her father, AH and the traffickers who brought her to the UK. At [26] he noted the respondent accepted these were all genuine threats as her father was the man who originally arranged for her to be trafficked; AH paid a substantial sum for her to be brought to the UK and did not end up with a bride and she still owes the traffickers a debt. At [27] he found it evident that the appellant would be at risk in her home area. Accordingly, the real issues where the reasonableness of relocation and sufficiency of protection.

8.              At [33] the judge noted the appellant suffers from anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD") "caused by the trauma of being trafficked and forced into prostitution". Then she was prescribed sertraline and had been attending weekly therapy sessions for three years although her sessions had recently been reduced to monthly and she said her mental health was improving. At [34] the judge noted the appellant "will be unable to rely on any of the family support networks and connections so important for successful integration within Albanian society". At [35] he noted that the appellant was educated to masters degree level and is a qualified teacher and was working as such until she left Albania. At [37] the judge noted the lack of evidence of the family's reach within Albania.

9.              Pulling those factors together, at [38] the judge found there was some (not high) risk of re-trafficking on return given her lack of familial support and as a single mother. However, he rejected the appellant's claim that she could not avail herself of the available protection [52] and that she would be forced to live under the radar in Albania to avoid detection [54] so relocating to Tirana would be safe [60]. He found there was insufficient evidence to show her family would know she had returned to Albania [59] or that her traffickers or AH would trace her given they had not located her within the UK [58]. Accordingly, while her fear of persecution was genuine, she can internally relocate and there is sufficient protection to mitigate her fears [60]

10.          Turning to Article 8, the judge found that the appellant's child's best interests are served by remaining with his mother [61]. Applying NC v SSHD [2023[ EWCA Civ 1379 as to the application of SSHD v Kamara [2016] EWCA Civ 813, and taking forward the findings he made regarding internal relocation and the appellant's mental health (in relation to which he found there was treatment in Albania [67]) and background, he concluded that the appellant had failed to show very significant obstacles to her reintegration despite there being some factors which would make it hard for her [62]-[69]. Finally, having carried out a balancing exercise, the judge decided that the respondent's decision did not disproportionately interfere with the appellant's or her child's Article 8 rights [77].

11.          In the EOL decision I found the judge had fallen into error largely in relation to his handling of sufficiency of protection and internal relocation. These errors infected the Article 8 assessment. I set aside the decision. As the background was not disputed, it was preserved. I directed that it is the application of those facts to the country guidance and the assessment of future risk which was infected by legal error so none of those findings were preserved.

The Legal Framework

12.          The appeal was brought pursuant to section 82 and 84 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 ("the 2002 Act") on the grounds that the respondent's decision is a breach of the appellant's rights under the Refugee Convention or as someone eligible for humanitarian protection or unlawful pursuant to section 6 Human Rights Act 1998.

13.          To succeed in an appeal on asylum grounds, an appellant must show a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason (race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, political opinion). The burden of proof is upon the appellant. As per the decision in Karanakaran v SSHD [2000] 3 All ER 449 the single standard of proof is a reasonable degree of likelihood. I must determine whether it is reasonably likely that taking the claim at its highest, there is a Convention reason; considering the credibility of the account, the appellant fears persecution for that Convention reason; the appellant would be persecuted for that Convention reason; there would not be sufficient protection available; and the appellant could not internally relocate.

14.          In the alternative, the appellant must show substantial grounds for believing she would face a real risk of suffering serious harm in their country of origin. The burden of proof rests on the appellant.

15.          As for her appeal on Article 8 grounds, the 5-stage approach set out in Razgar v SSHD [2004] UKHL 27 is to be followed. It is for the appellant to establish that she has an Article 8 private and that the respondent's decision risks interfering with that private life such that Article 8 is potentially engaged. It is then for the respondent to show that the decision is necessary and proportionate to one of the legitimate aims. At this stage I am to consider the provisions of section 117B of the 2002 Act and I must treat the best interests of the appellant's child as a primary consideration.

16.          In the event that the appellant claims an ability to meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules it is for her to establish that on the balance of probabilities. If she is able to do so, assuming Article 8 is engaged, that ability is likely to be determinative of the appeal on human rights grounds ( TZ (Pakistan) and PG (India) [2018] EWCA Civ 1109 applies). If not, it is likely only to be if the respondent's decision leads to unjustifiably harsh consequences for the appellant or her son that the decision could be said to be disproportionate to the need for effective immigration control.

17.          The primary country guidance relevant to this appeal is contained within TD and AD. Given its importance to this appeal, I set out the headnote in full.

"Much of the guidance given in AM & BM (Trafficked women) Albania CG [2010] UKUT 80 (IAC) is maintained. Where that guidance has been amended or supplemented by this decision it has been highlighted in bold:

"a) It is not possible to set out a typical profile of trafficked women from Albania: trafficked women come from all areas of the country and from varied social backgrounds.

b) Much of Albanian society is governed by a strict code of honour which not only means that trafficked women would have very considerable difficulty in reintegrating into their home areas on return but also will affect their ability to relocate internally. Those who have children outside marriage are particularly vulnerable. In extreme cases the close relatives of the trafficked woman may refuse to have the trafficked woman's child return with her and could force her to abandon the child.

c) Some women are lured to leave Albania with false promises of relationships or work. Others may seek out traffickers in order to facilitate their departure from Albania and their establishment in prostitution abroad. Although such women cannot be said to have left Albania against their will, where they have fallen under the control of traffickers for the purpose of exploitation there is likely to be considerable violence within the relationships and a lack of freedom: such women are victims of trafficking.

d) In the past few years the Albanian government has made significant efforts to improve its response to trafficking. This includes widening the scope of legislation, publishing the Standard Operating Procedures, implementing an effective National Referral Mechanism, appointing a new Anti-trafficking Co-ordinator, and providing training to law enforcement officials. There is in general a Horvath-standard sufficiency of protection, but it will not be effective in every case. When considering whether or not there is a sufficiency of protection for a victim of trafficking her particular circumstances must be considered.

e) There is now in place a reception and reintegration programme for victims of trafficking. Returning victims of trafficking are able to stay in a shelter on arrival, and in 'heavy cases' may be able to stay there for up to 2 years. During this initial period after return victims of trafficking are supported and protected. Unless the individual has particular vulnerabilities such as physical or mental health issues, this option cannot generally be said to be unreasonable; whether it is must be determined on a case by case basis.

f) Once asked to leave the shelter a victim of trafficking can live on her own. In doing so she will face significant challenges including, but not limited to, stigma, isolation, financial hardship and uncertainty, a sense of physical insecurity and the subjective fear of being found either by their families or former traffickers. Some women will have the capacity to negotiate these challenges without undue hardship. There will however be victims of trafficking with characteristics, such as mental illness or psychological scarring, for whom living alone in these circumstances would not be reasonable. Whether a particular appellant falls into that category will call for a careful assessment of all the circumstances.

g) Re-trafficking is a reality. Whether that risk exists for an individual claimant will turn in part on the factors that led to the initial trafficking, and on her personal circumstances, including her background, age, and her willingness and ability to seek help from the authorities. For a proportion of victims of trafficking, their situations may mean that they are especially vulnerable to re-trafficking, or being forced into other exploitative situations.

h) Trafficked women from Albania may well be members of a particular social group on that account alone. Whether they are at risk of persecution on account of such membership and whether they will be able to access sufficiency of protection from the authorities will depend upon their individual circumstances including but not limited to the following:

1) The social status and economic standing of her family

2) The level of education of the victim of trafficking or her family

3) The victim of trafficking's state of health, particularly her mental health

4) The presence of an illegitimate child

5) The area of origin

6) Age

7) What support network will be available.""

Updating Evidence

18.          In oral evidence before me the appellant confirmed she was not in contact with her family. She continues to take anti-depressant medication, sertraline 150mg. She has been accessing Talking Therapies for nearly five years and has a session every Wednesday for 90 minutes. They run eight sessions at a time and reviewed at the end of each block. For that reason, she does not know for how long she will have them.

19.          In cross-examination, the appellant was asked about AH. She confirmed she never met him but her father, who is very conservative, insisted she marry him as they were engaged. In light of what happened, she believes he will continue to do so. Although she is aware of shelters in Albania, she believes they offer short term help only and afterwards she will be left on the streets.

20.          In re-examination the appellant said she feared her father will continue to insist she married AH and that she has brought shame on her family. She last spoke to her father two years ago and he was threatening to her. That was in response to a question I asked and although I offered the option to the representatives to ask further questions, neither did so.

21.          I deal with the updating background country information below.

Submissions

22.          Mr Tufan clarified he was not submitting the appellant's father would take care of her in Albania. Although he did not expressly invite me to re-open any of the preserved findings, the thrust of Mr Tufan's submissions in relation to the appellant's father was that she has been inconsistent as regards when she last spoke to him and that there was little evidence that he posed a threat to her. He submitted that the risk of re-trafficking was small; the previous trafficking was opportunistic; she falls outside the age range for those generally within profile for trafficking; the availability of shelters and the country evidence which showed that only 2-5% of former VOTs are re-trafficked. He submitted the appellant's reluctance to avail herself of protection does not mean it is not available. In relation to the appellant's mental health Mr Tufan relied on the July 2024 CPIN on human trafficking to submit that mental health care is generally available in shelters and that former VOTs can stay for up to 3-5 years so provision is not only short-term; she will not be required to leave until she is ready to do so. Although the presence of an illegitimate child is not viewed favourably in Albanian society, he submitted the evidence did not reveal that is the case in shelters. Overall he submitted that the level of protection is sufficient to mitigate the risk of re-trafficking and not to result in unjustifiably harsh consequences.

23.          Mr Saleem submitted the persecutors have a continuing interest in the appellant in light of the outstanding debt owed to the traffickers; the financial loss AH suffered and her father's conservative attitudes. The appellant's return will become known to them due to Albania's size and culture ( EH (blood feuds) CG [2012] UKUT 348 and BF (Tirana - gay men) CG [2019] UKUT 93 apply) and they will be motivated then to trace her. He submitted that many of the risk factors in TD and AD apply; the protective factors of her age and education did not prevent her being trafficked before; her risk now is elevated by that experience and the impact on her mental health which continues notwithstanding the length and intensity of treatment she has had. In that context, she is unlikely to recover when in a shelter in Albania where she is fearful; it is no answer to say that she can stay in a shelter for a protracted period; the lack of family support is a real concern upon leaving a shelter. There are a number of factors which means the efficacy of protection falls down notwithstanding the efforts of the state and internal relocation is unreasonable. Mr Saleem carried forward his submissions to the Article 8 case.

The Expert Evidence

24.          The appellant relies on an expert country information report provided by Ms Antonia Young dated 25 February 2024, the overall conclusion of which was that the appellant would be at real risk of being located by her original traffickers or family or of being re-trafficked against which there is no effective protection or a reasonable internal relocation alternative.

25.          At the hearing before the First-tier Tribunal, the judge did not find much weight to attach to the report because of the selective and aged evidence on which she relied to support her conclusions. The judge noted similar observations were made of Dr Young in BF (Tirana - gay men) CG [2019] UKUT 93 and he decided more weight attached to the CPINs and other objective evidence provided [21]-[24].

26.          It was clear from [24] that the respondent's position at the hearing before the judge was not one which was accepting of Dr Young's evidence. Neither of the parties made submissions to me as to the weight to be attached to her report, although Mr Saleem did direct me to the parts of it on which he particularly relied. Having read the report myself, I share some of the concerns outlined in my preceding paragraphs and I find that more up to date evidence is contained within the July 2024 Trafficking CPIN.

27.          Having said that, some of the parts of the report to which Mr Saleem directed me were not particularly controversial. For example, the section dealing with stigma attaching to single women is reflected in the country guidance. The expert's application of the risk factors in TD and AD to the appellant's case is an exercise, ultimately, for me.

Discussion of the Evidence and Findings

Mental Health

28.          Neither the respondent nor the judge questioned the medical evidence presented to the First-tier. The appellant did not provide any updating documentary evidence although she gave evidence about her present state of mental health and that was not challenged.

29.          We are now eight months on from the date the judge decided the appeal. The only material change to the appellant's situation is that her therapy sessions have returned to weekly, having reduced to monthly at the time of the hearing before the judge. She continues to be treated for her mental health conditions pharmacologically. Mr Saleem drew to my attention the appellant's medical notes to show that the dose of sertraline she is now on (150mg) has not decreased. From an analysis of the medical notes she has been on 150mg since 2020 [HB69]-[HB84].

30.          The most up to date evidence before the Tribunal was a report from Sarah Rees a Psychotraumatologist from 'U Matter Counselling' dated 7 March 2023. In her earlier letter dated 21 March 2022 Ms Rees explained that the appellant was referred to their services for trauma informed therapy. It is clear from her 2023 report that uncertainty about her status and her fear of the future, including return to Albania, destabilises the good progress she otherwise makes [HB70]. Ms Rees noted the appellant's subjective fear of return to Albania; the consistent research evidence that victims of abuse are at greater risk of being 'revictimised' and that "the key clinical point is that abuse renders victims more rather than less vulnerable to future abuse". Therefore Ms Rees said "my clinical opinion therefore remains that if (the A) and her son, were to return to Albania, they would be at significant risk of being 're-victimised'. (A) lives in absolute fear of being removed from the UK". By October 2023 the appellant was reeving therapy for General Anxiety Disorder [HB75].

31.          Taking into account the above, the updating evidence from the appellant, I am satisfied the appellant is still sufficiently mentally unwell that she is deemed to require ongoing counselling and medication to help her manage her anxiety against the backdrop of the trauma she has endured. That is despite having been receiving therapy since her first referral in 2019 [HB80] and been on medication for over 4 years.

32.          I will turn to mental health provision in Albania below.

Ability of Persecutors to trace the appellant

33.          The judge appeared to accept at [26] that the threats the appellant faced from the three sources of her fear were genuine ones (see [7] above) and it was for that reason she was found to be at risk of persecution in her home area. The reason the judge did not find the risk to extend beyond that is illuminated at [37] where the judge said there is no evidence the appellant's family has influence over state agents which "reduces the risk they would be able to track the appellant down to re-traffic her or exact honour-based revenge".

34.          As confirmed in ( KB (Art 8: points-based proportionality assessment) Albania [2022] UKUT 161 applies) [30] on which the appellant relied , the country guidance case law on Albania demonstrates that;

"the effectiveness of internal relocation to avoid a risk of harm from a non state actor depends at least in part on the motivation of the non state actor"

and, if they are strongly motivated, that is despite a non-state actor having influence beyond their local area ( KB [32]).

35.          I note that the appellant was able to escape her traffickers in the UK and she has remained in the UK without having been located. The judge accepted the appellant's father continued to pose a risk to her. He raised no credibility concerns about her evidence and of course, she has been accepted as a VOT. The appellant's detailed witness statement sets out multiple and significant lengths to which her father went to convey her to the UK in order to marry AH, over many months, despite her being returned by the authorities of various countries and being subject to a travel ban and then marrying her off in Albania purely to secure a change in her name [HB51-52]. None of this evidence has been challenged. There is no basis in my judgement to depart from the judge's finding that the appellant is at risk in her home area and that risk includes a risk of re-trafficking from her father for the purposes of ensuring she married AH as per the agreement and in light of the money AH paid for that purpose.

36.          Her oral evidence was that when she last spoke to her father two years ago he was intent on her still marrying AH so she can only assume that remains his position given his conservative beliefs. I have not been directed to any evidence that AH or his family have taken any steps to either enforce the marriage or seek to recoup the money they paid in anticipation of the marriage taking place. AH is of course in the UK.

37.          In these circumstances, there is insufficient evidence before me to satisfy me that either the traffickers or AH have tried to trace the appellant or procure any revenge for what they are owed. Neither is there sufficient evidence to satisfy me that the appellant's family has thus far done so. However, I treat the judge's findings at [26] as being a finding that there is a reason which provides motivation for each of them to exact some form of revenge or repayment of debt from the appellant were they able to do so and if they happen to come upon the appellant (for example if she returned to her home area hence his decision that she was at risk there).

38.          The other ways in which Mr Saleem suggested the appellant could be traced was either by word of mouth given the relative small size of Albania and the nature of its society or because of the need to register in the area of proposed relocation. There is support for that in the July 2024 Trafficking CPIN at [13.3.1]-[13.3.5] in which virtually all of the sources cited said that it is possible for victims to be traced and that relocation is not really possible. The government of Albania's response was not to deny it, but to say that protection exists in the form of shelters [13.3.6].

39.          Having considered the evidence in the round in light of the judge's finding and the above country evidence, I am satisfied that if word of the appellant's return to Albania reached those whom she fears, it is reasonably likely that one or all of them would be sufficiently motivated to locate her.

Risk of Re-trafficking/Sufficiency of Protection and Internal Relocation

40.          There is an unchallenged finding at [27] and [38] of the judge's decision, that the appellant is at real risk of persecution in her home area and that she is at some risk of re-trafficking as a single mother with no family support. Whilst it does not say so expressly, the implication is that the risk is a general one not limited just to those that originally trafficked her. I also remind myself that, based on the undisputed facts, the appellant was unable to resist persistent efforts by her father to send her to the UK to be married against her wishes. That was notwithstanding her age and education.

41.          The issue, therefore is whether there is a safe and reasonable internal relocation option for the appellant. A safe relocation alternative imports consideration of whether or not there is sufficient protection for her in the area of proposed relocation. In addition to being safe, internal relocation would also have to be reasonable (sometimes expressed as 'not unduly harsh').

42.          I remind myself as to what amounts to sufficient protection as a matter of law. The fundamental principle was set out by the House of Lords in Horvath v SSHD [2000] UKHL 37. In summary, the actor of protection has to have taken reasonable steps to prevent the persecution by operating an effective legal system for the detection, prosecution and punishment of such acts which the appellant is able to access. 

43.          In relation to internal relocation, the Supreme Court in SC (Jamaica) v SSHD [2022 ] UKSC 15, set out at paragraph 95:

"The correct approach to the question of internal relocation under the Refugee Convention is that set out in Januzi at para 21 and in AH (Sudan) at para 13 (see paras 58 and 59 above). It involves a holistic approach involving specific reference to the individual's personal circumstances including past persecution or fear thereof, psychological and health condition, family and social situation, and survival capacities in order to determine the impact on that individual of settling in the proposed place of relocation and whether the individual "can reasonably be expected to stay" in that place. It does not take into account the standard of rights protection which a person would enjoy in the country where refuge is sought."

44.          The burden of proof remains on the appellant to prove why internal relocation within Albania would be unduly harsh; see MB (Internal relocation - burden of proof) Albania [2019] UKUT 392 (IAC).

45.          The starting point for this analysis is the Country Guidance which applies unless there are "strong grounds supported by cogent evidence " justifying departure ( SG (Iraq) [2012] EWCA Civ 940 applies).

46.          Turning to the Country Guidance, applying headnote (d) of TD and AD, there is a general Horvath standard sufficiency of protection. However, I have to consider the appellant's particular circumstances to assess whether or not it will be effective for her.

47.          In so far as headnote (b) of TD and AD relates to internal relocation, I am satisfied it is capable of applying to the appellant as a VOT with a child outside marriage.

48.          Applying headnote (e), internal relocation into one of the shelters in Albania is generally not unreasonable unless someone has particular vulnerability (and of course the appellant has mental health issues). It has to be assessed on a case by case basis.

49.          Headnote (f) requires an assessment of the appellant's circumstances at the point at which a former VOT leaves the shelter (referred to at [112] of TD and AD as the "critical" point and at [105] as the "greatest challenge" for someone without family support). In undertaking that analysis the factors listed at headnote (f) are to be considered. The appellant falls into the example given in headnote (f) of someone with a characteristic (mental illness) for whom living alone in these circumstance would not be reasonable. That requires a careful assessment of all the circumstances. I have no doubt the appellant has a subjective fear of being located by her father or others that she fears.

50.          Applying headnote (g) the appellant has already been found to be at some risk of re-trafficking.

51.          To assist with the evaluation of the efficacy of sufficiency of protection, headnote (h) provides a non-exhaustive checklist. I will apply each of those in turn to the established facts of this case:

a)       There is little information available to me about the social status and economic standing of the appellant's family save; they have conservative and traditional values and her father insisted the appellant be married to a man she had never met due to a pre-existing engagement and contrary to the appellant's wishes; a plan he pursued over a significant period and with significant commitment (see [35] above).

b)       The appellant is educated to a high level. Her degree was completed in Shkoder and her masters degree in Tirana (although she did not live independently in Tirana as she travelled there from her home area ([9] appellant's witness statement)). She had already obtained this level of education and was employed as a teacher in Burrell at the time she was first trafficked out of Albania;

c)        I have not been directed to any evidence to show the appellant is in poor physical health, but she has ongoing mental ill-health as found at [31] above.

d)      She has an illegitimate child who is now 5 years of age;

e)       The family are from Burrell in the north of Albania;

f)        She is 36 years old. Although that is older than the general profile of trafficked girls and women in Albania (see [152] of TD and AD), at the time of her original trafficking she was already outside of that age range (late teens/early twenties) as she was 30 years of age; this is a relevant factor in light of para 339K of the Rules which says :

"The fact that a person has already been subject to persecution or serious harm, or to direct threats of such persecution or such harm, will be regarded as a serious indication of the person's well-founded fear of persecution or real risk of suffering serious harm, unless there are good reasons to consider that such persecution or serious harm will not be repeated."

g)       The appellant does not have any family support.

52.          It is clear from the above analysis that there are a considerable number of factors in the appellant's case which when considered cumulatively are capable, applying the Country Guidance, of supporting a finding that internal relocation for the appellant is unreasonable, both inside and outside of the shelters and that protection would not be sufficient. In summary those factors are the lack of family support; the presence of an illegitimate child; mental health issues; a subjective fear of her persecutors; the fact the appellant is at some risk of re-trafficking and that those she fears would have sufficient motivation to trace her were they to hear that she had returned to Albania.

53.          Considering the updating evidence, the July 2024 Trafficking CPIN is the most recent evidence and both parties placed reliance on parts of the country evidence contained therein. The report was informed, in part, by the results of the 'Report of a fact-finding mission Albania: Human trafficking' published in December 2022 ("the FFM") and also by a letter from the British Embassy in Albania dated 20 February 2024 entitled "Update on Albania's Capacity to Support Victims and Potential Victims of Trafficking" (Annex B).

54.          The evidence reveals that Albania is still a source country for trafficking [8.1.1] although the state has increased its efforts to eliminate it [10.1.1]. Sexual exploitation and forced marriages continue to be some of the drivers for trafficking [8.1.1]-[8.1.9] along with taboo around mental health [12.5.12]. In common with TD and AD, the risk factors for trafficking continue to include economic and family factors including single-headed households [8.2.3], although supportive families mitigate the risk [8.5.2]. Most actual and potential victims are women [8.2.5]. The figures of the number of people trafficked or at risk of trafficking is unclear with some reports indicating a rise from 2020 to 2021 [8.3.1]-[8.3.5] and others a decline in numbers [8.3.3]-[8.3.4]. Most victims were trafficked by family members or people known to them [8.4.2]-[8.4.3] although that could include those in "grooming" type relationships [8.4.5]. Following intervention and support, most trafficking victims interviewed for the UNICEF "Trafficked by someone I knew" report May 2022 reported they were no longer at risk of re-trafficking [8.5.4] although the number actually re-trafficked was not reported [8.5.7]. The Government of Albania puts that number as about 3 or 4 cases since 2013 [8.5.12].

55.          As in TD and AD, the updating evidence reveals that stigma and discrimination of those previously trafficked continues particularly with reference to access to crucial state services [9.1.1]-[9.1.5] and economic assistance [12.2.2]-[12.2.3] and that is further aggravated by being a mother with children [9.1.7]. Although there appears to be some recent initiatives to try to re-frame perceptions of victims of trafficking, the impact of that is not yet known [9.1.4].

56.          The updating evidence about protection in general terms is lengthy (see[10.1]-[10.6] and [10.10]-[10.11]). I do not refer to it in any detail as the appellant's case does not expressly challenge the position in TD and AD that there is, in general, sufficient protection in Albania for VOTs. I turn instead to consider what the updating evidence says about the provision of support in Albania (specifically the proposed location of return, Tirana) as that is relevant both to whether the appellant would avail herself of protection and also to the reasonableness of relocation. Before doing so, I simply mention that [10.9] of the July 2024 Trafficking CPIN sets out the evidence about the barriers to protection and they include perceived delay in action and the fact the government's anti-trafficking hotline has been inoperative since 2020. However, one of the organisations interviewed said, there are no barriers as long as a person is identified as a VOT although that does not always happen.

57.          The July 2024 Trafficking CPIN sets out in some detail the provision of shelters in Albania. Again, the principle of this provision is not expressly in issue. It is the adequacy and reasonableness of it that underlies the appellant's case. In summary, there is one state run shelter in Tirana [11.1.3] with capacity for 15 adults and minors [11.2.3] plus an extra 45 cases of accommodation outside the shelter [11.2.4]. Although the USSD Trafficking in Persons ("TiP") Report 2023 noted reasonable quality care despite funding limitations although the resources were worse for long-term care, employment and other reintegration efforts particularly for children and victims with children [11.1.5]. There is also a NGO run centre in Tirana [11.2.1] with 15-25 beds each. The evidence about the efficacy of shelters varied with some saying that capacity of shelters is good [11.2.1] and [11.2.6] and others saying that it is only a short-term fix measured in months not years [11.2.2]. Although government financial support of shelters increased in 2021 and 2022, the USSD TiP Report 2023 noted it was insufficient and financial constraints continued [11.2.11]; that was echoed by other organisations cited at [11.2.12]-[11.2.16] and it is clear that there is significant reliance on foreign aid for the shelters to remain viable.

58.          Outside of the shelters, funding of services continues to present problems [12.1.1] but services were provided such as mental health and psychological care and economic empowerment programs [12.1.3] and [12.1.5] albeit implementation was varied and funding limited [12.1.4]. The state run shelter in Tirana provide multi-disciplinary team support for VOTs who each have a case manager and an individual reintegration plan which can continue once the person has left the shelter; that includes education and after-school care for children of VOTs without family support [12.1.6]. The social services' provision in Tirana is listed at [12.1.2] and includes support with mental health, employment, housing and community services and the Tirana shelter also assists with rent once a VOT leaves the shelter [12.3.3]. One contributor to the respondent's 2022 FFM reported that reintegration can be for as long as 5 years and sometimes more in cases with mental health problems [12.1.9]. Although UNICEF Albania noted the theory of 3 year plus reintegration programmes, it said in reality it does not happen due to funding and resource constraints [12.1.10].

59.          The part of the July 2024 Trafficking CPIN dealing expressly with mental health provision reveals inconsistent evidence, both internally and with the section dealing with provisions inside and outside of shelters (see above). An official from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe responding to the 2022 FFM said there is no dedicated mental health services for VOTS, not even in the shelters [12.5.3] whereas a representative from the Tirana shelter said there was some in the shelter and the ability to refer out for conditions such as PTSD [12.5.4] albeit that long term solutions are difficult particularly with regard to accommodation so those with long term conditions stayed from 3-5 years [12.5.5]. A web-based initiative has been instituted by the respondent's Modern Slavery Fund to provide mental health and psychological counselling services although the appellant does not appear to be within the main cohort of intended beneficiaries [12.5.12]. The service appears to be available within and after shelter accommodation [12.5.13]. The Embassy letter states that, through the Modern Slavery Fund Programme, the three primary service providers all offer psychological services for VOTs leading to individual recovery plans and counselling and medication is available even after leaving shelters.

60.          From [12.1.14] the July 2024 Trafficking CPIN reported on various NGO and other non-state initiatives, sometimes in partnership with the government of Albania, which have been put in place this decade to support the reintegration of VOTs, including the 'Transformation of the National Response to Human Trafficking in and from Albania' Programme [12.1.17]-[12.1.21], and funding specifically provided by the UK Government to returnees including VOTs [12.1.23].

61.          Despite the Albanian government's report that Economic assistance to VOTs has increased [12.2.15], it remains problematic due to stigma and lack of resources and reluctance to claim it [12.2] and [12.3.8] although the Tirana shelter offers some assistance [12.3.4], nevertheless the bureaucratic process appears arduous and demands of significant evidence [12.3.12].

62.          There is evidence that problems with securing employment for female VOTs is often associated with low educational levels (see [12.4]) which does not apply to the appellant. However, there is some evidence that this is not the only barrier, others are: lack of opportunity, childcare, ongoing trauma and stigma [12.4.5] and, if they are displaced, registration in the civil state [12.4.11]. Nevertheless, the evidence in this section suggests some positive outcomes.

63.          That family support continues to be important for single women and mothers was reiterated by at least two of the responders to the 2022 FFM, one saying it is easier with family support and one saying it is very difficult without it [13.2.2]. A responder from Tirana confirmed that there is a number of obstacles single mothers face when reintegrating such as lack of childcare [13.2.3]. Another responder referred to the rising cost of living in Tirana and said that "for women ...VOT it seems impossible to reintegrate as they don't have the psychological ability to stay in employment" [13.2.5] even though for single women without children it may be easier for to live independently in Tirana [13.2.4]. Even then the evidence is not consistent on that and other sources refer to significant obstacles to them reintegrating [13.2.6].

64.          Standing back and looking at the evidence in the round, I am not persuaded that there is cogent evidence that the situation for someone in the appellant's position has changed materially since TD and AD was decided in 2016. I am certainly not satisfied there are there are strong grounds to find there has been a change. The evidence reveals an increase in initiatives and partnership involvement, but the results of that are either mixed or not yet known. There is still significant reporting of obstacles faced by VOTs, particularly those with vulnerabilities, single mothers and those without family support which chimes with TD and AD and appear still to be a barrier to the efficacy of the programmes in place to assist returning VOTs.

65.          Whilst there may be some provision in shelters for the appellant to live with her son, I am persuaded that she will not be able to access sufficient mental health treatment to assist her to recover sufficiently from her past trauma to enable her to encounter the significant obstacles which will present themselves upon departure from the shelter. In arriving at that decision I take into account that the appellant has been subject to both medication and regular trauma-focused and other therapy for nearly five years in a place where she feels relatively safe, yet she still is not ready to be discharged from those services.

66.          Such obstacles as she will face upon leaving the shelter include having to navigate life for her and her child in Tirana, without family support, in genuine fear of being located by her father or the others whom she feared. She is rendered more not less vulnerable to retrafficking as a result of her past experiences. Other factors which might increase that risk are poverty and poor mental health. She will be entirely reliant either on herself and/or the state to ensure that she is able to survive with her child with somewhere to live and food for them to eat. There is sufficient evidence in the respondent's own CPIN, on which the appellant relies, of the stigma and discrimination she is likely to face in accessing those services and of the impact of her experiences on her obtaining then maintaining employment despite her level of qualification. Compounding that, she lacks family support which is consistently said to be problematic, and it presents the appellant with practical difficulties with regards to childcare which impact on her ability to work and provide for them both. If she is not robust enough to leave the shelter then she will have to stay there (assuming there continues to be sufficient funding for her place to remain available for her and her son). That is likely to mean that she is there for potentially many years rather than months.

67.          In all the circumstances of the appellant's specific case, I am persuaded that relocation to Tirana (or either of the other cities the respondent proposed) is not reasonable for her and she will not be able to access the level of state protection available in Albania in order for it to be effective in the event that she is traced by those she fears or otherwise targeted for trafficking.

68.          For these reasons, it follows that I find the appellant to be a refugee.

69.          It follows that she does not require humanitarian protection.

70.          Whilst it is not necessary to consider the appellant's Article 8 claim, for the same reasons that I do not find internal relocation reasonable, I find there to be very significant obstacles to the appellant's reintegration into Albania pursuant to paragraph 276ADE(1)(vi) of the Rules. The appellant has a private life in the UK and if the respondent's decision is implemented she will be removed from that life with consequences of such gravity that I find Article 8 potentially engaged. Given that the appellant is able to meet the requirements of the Rules, I find that determinative of her appeal on human rights grounds.

Notice of Decision

The appeal is allowed on asylum and human rights grounds.

 

 

SJ Rastogi

Judge of the Upper Tribunal

Immigration and Asylum Chamber

 

19 February 2025