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

 

Upper Tribunal

(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/07242/2017

 

 

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

 

 

Heard at Field House	Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 10 April 2018	On 24 April 2018

 

Before

 

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE blum

 

 

Between

 

EP

(anonymity direction MADE)

Appellant

and

 

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

 

 

Representation :

For the appellant: Ms G Mellon, Counsel, instructed by Sutovic & Hartigan

For the respondent: Mr P Nath, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

 

 

DECISION AND REASONS

1.       This is a remade decision following the identification of a material legal error in the decision of Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Fletcher-Hill (the judge), promulgated on 4 October 2017, in which she allowed the appellant's appeal against the respondent's decision, dated 13 July 2017, to refuse his protection and human rights claim.

 

 

 

Background

2.       The appellant, a national of Albania, was born in 1997. He arrived in the UK on 23 December 2013 aged 16 years old. He made an asylum claim based on his fear of serious ill-treatment from his father and, although this was refused on 17 November 2014, he was granted limited leave to remain in accordance with the Home Office Asylum Policy Instruction on Discretionary Leave (DL) because he was an unaccompanied minor. He was granted DL until 19 April 2015 and, on 17 April 2015, he made an application for further leave to remain in the UK. The refusal of this application on 13 July 2017 led to the present appeal.

3.       In both of her Reasons For Refusal Letters the respondent accepted the core elements of the appellant's account that caused him to leave Albania and make his protection claim in the UK. From a very young age the appellant had been abused by his father. When he was 12 years old the appellant's father broke his legs. The appellant was forced to leave school by his father. In August 2013 his father sexually abused him for the first time. The respondent accepted that there was a reasonable degree of likelihood that the appellant had been abused by his father. This was principally based upon consistency in the appellant's account both internally and with respect to background material. The respondent was not however satisfied that the appellant, who was now an adult, would be unable to avail himself of a sufficiency of protection and found that he could, in any event, avail himself of the internal relocation alternative. I shall consider the evidence relied on by the respondent in due course.

4.       The First-tier Tribunal judge heard oral evidence from the appellant and was invited by the respondent's representative to consider extracts of background evidence relating to the availability of a sufficiency of protection contained in the Reasons For Refusal Letter dated 17 November 2014 (incorporated by reference into the July 2017 decision) and in the appellant's 'Objective Bundle', including the Country of Origin Information Report (COIR) of July 2017. The Judge was also invited by both representatives to consider an expert country report relating to Albania prepared by Ms Antonia Young which was dated 27 August 2015. This report accompanied the appellant's application for further leave to remain and was considered by the respondent in her July 2017 decision. The judge found the appellant to be a credible witness and resolved the only outstanding credibility issue, whether he reported the abuse he suffered to the local police, in the appellant's favour. The judge considered that Ms Young's report was preferable to the evidence relied on by the respondent in respect of the availability of a sufficiency of protection and internal relocation.

5.       In its error of law decision, promulgated on 13 February 2018, the Upper Tribunal found that the judge failed to provide adequate reasons for preferring Ms Young's expert report to the background country evidence relied on by the respondent. In concluding that there was no sufficiency of protection the judge repeated some of the conclusions reached by Ms Young but failed to adequately engage with the evidence relied on by the respondent relating to this issue. While the background evidence relied on by the respondent, identified in her decisions dated 17 November 2014 and 13 July 2017, was of a general nature it did suggest that a sufficiency of protection was generally available, and this conclusion was supported by the aged Country Guidance case of DM (Sufficiency of Protection - PSG - Women - Domestic Violence) Albania CG [2004] UKIAT 00059 . The judge failed to undertake a satisfactory analysis of the background evidence relied on by the respondent and no attempt was made to explain why the expert's evidence was preferred. The absence of any such explanation rendered the decision unsafe.

6.       Although the respondent's grounds also criticised Ms Young as an expert and argued that the judge was not entitled to find that the appellant's father would continue to look for him, the Upper Tribunal found these criticisms lacked merit. Nor did the respondent take issue in respect of any of the judge's other credibility findings, reflecting the respondent's position before the First-tier Tribunal. In the error of law decision The Upper Tribunal indicated that the factual findings at paragraph 78 of the judge's decision would stand, save that there may be an issue as to whether the judge was entitled to conclude that the appellant's father would have access to information throughout Albania simply based on his previous military conscription. The retained findings of fact included a finding that the appellant did attempt to report his father's abuse to the police, and that the respondent's father would continue to have an adverse interest in him.

7.       The appeal was listed for a rehearing to determine whether, on the accepted facts, a sufficiency of protection existed in the appellant's home area, and, if not, whether internal relocation was available. The adjourned hearing would also consider the appellant's article 8 claim.

 

The resumed hearing

8.       At the hearing, and pursuant to rule 15 (2A) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant served a supplementary bundle consisting of a further letter dated 28 March 2018 from Donna Maynard, employed by the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames as the appellant's Personal Advisor, and an Addendum expert report from Ms Antonia Young dated 6 April 2018. I additionally received a skeleton argument from Ms Mellon.

9.       In addition to the new evidence, the Upper Tribunal considered the two bundles of documents relied on by the appellant in his appeal before the First-tier Tribunal. One bundle included his witness statement dated 21 August 2017, a letter dated 22 August 2017 from Donna Maynard, a clinical psychology report produced by Dr Heke dated 21 August 2017, and Antonia Young's 2015 expert country report. The other bundle contained background evidence including a Country Policy and Information Note - 'Albania - Background information, including actors of protection, and internal relocation', July 2017 (CPIN).

10.   The appellant did not give any oral evidence. Ms Maynard adopted her two letters as her evidence-in-chief and underwent examination-in-chief and cross-examination. I will consider her evidence as and when appropriate in my assessment of the availability of a sufficiency of protection and internal relocation. Both parties made their submissions which I have recorded and carefully considered.

 

Assessment of the availability of a sufficiency of protection

11.   I must first consider whether the appellant faces a real risk of persecution in his home area, the burden of proof resting on him, albeit to the lower standard. In determining whether the Albanian authorities can provide a sufficiency of protection to this particular appellant it is necessary to set out the accepted factual matrix in a little more detail.

12.   The appellant hails from the town of Has, in northern Albania. He previously lived with his mother, his father, his older sister and two younger brothers. The appellant's father was an odd job man. He underwent mandatory military service, which lasted for 2 to 3 years, when he was in his early 20s. The appellant's father established strong friendships during his military service with people from different regions of Albania with whom he kept in touch. The appellant's father was visited by these friends and he sometimes visited them.

13.   The appellant's father did not believe that the appellant was his son and would frequently and violently beat him. Some beatings would be inflicted with a belt or a broom. When the appellant was 12 years old his father broke both his legs during an assault with a broom. This injury required an operation in Tirana and the appellant had to remain in bed for a year. Although the appellant did not undergo any physical beating during this period, his father continued to subject him to verbal abuse. The appellant still has problems with his legs and has had appointments with orthopaedic specialists in the UK. The beatings resumed once the appellant was well enough to get out of bed. On 24 August 2013 the appellant's father sexually abused him for the 1 ^st time and these attacks continued until he left Albania in December 2013. The appellant's mother and his siblings were scared of the appellant's father and could not protect him or help him.

14.   The appellant went to the police station in Has to report his father's abuse. The police officer knew the appellant's father and, when the appellant confirmed his relationship, the appellant was kicked and chased out of the police station. He was not allowed to register a complaint against his father. The police officer informed the appellant's father of the attempt to lodge a complaint and when the appellant returned home his father beat him badly and threatened to kill him if he ever reported him again. The appellant maintained that his father had friends in the police. The nearest other police station was in Kukes, a 3 to 4 hour journey by foot. I take judicial notice that Kukes is also in the north of Albania.

15.   The appellant was able to leave Albania with the help of his maternal uncle who located an agent. The appellant however had to wait until his maternal uncle amassed sufficient funds to facilitate his escape and during this time he continued to be abused. The appellant fears his father will continue to look for him because he does not want to risk the appellant speaking to anyone else about what he did, and to punish the appellant for trying to report him and for leaving. The appellant's father would search for him and seek to kill him because of the dishonour caused by the appellant's allegations.

16.   The following are the essential elements to be distilled from the accepted factual matrix: the appellant has been subjected to very serious ill treatment from his father; his father has threatened to kill him and will continue to look for him in Albania; and he has already tried to obtain protection from the police in his home area. It has been accepted by the respondent, a point acknowledged by Mr Nath at the hearing, that the appellant is at risk of serious ill harm from his father should he return to his home area of Albania. It remains to be determined whether the authorities are able to offer the appellant a sufficiency of protection in his home area.

17.   In submitting that a sufficiency of protection is available in the appellant's home area the respondent relies on the decision in DM (Sufficiency of Protection - PSG - Women - Domestic Violence) Albania CG [2004] UKIAT 00059. Although DM is of some vintage, it remains a Country Guidance case. This short decision however did not engage in the detailed analysis now generally seen in Country Guidance cases and was primarily concerned with the position of female victims of domestic violence, not male victims, and whether there was sufficient evidence that women, per se, constituted a Particular Social Group. Nor was any expert report provided to the Tribunal. The Tribunal nevertheless considered the October 2003 Country Information and Policy Unit report on Albania which detailed training received by the Albanian police on issues of gender and treatment of female victims of domestic violence, and noted that, although there was no definition of domestic violence in Albanian law or any specific law against domestic violence, the authorities were able to use general laws against violence in the context of domestic abuse. The Tribunal also found that, if a woman reported a crime and the police did nothing, she could file a criminal law suit against the police as well as a request against them via the People's Advocate Office for violation of her rights. The Tribunal noted that the Women's Bar Association offered legal aid and legal counselling for women having legal problems, and that there were NGOs in Albania offering services to abused women. I consider the assessment undertaken in DM and its conclusions as my starting point.

18.   In her Reasons For Refusal Letter dated 13 July 2017 the respondent provides extracts from the Criminal Code of Albania relating to Domestic Violence (Article 130) setting out the nature of domestic violence offences and the available punishments. This indicates that there are now specific provisions of the Criminal Code criminalising domestic violence against close relatives that result in injury or a violation of the relative's physical, psycho-social and economic integrity. The respondent also relies on the decision in DM , and quoted from the US State Department report 2014 and an Interpol document in respect of the structure and organisation of the Albanian police.

19.   The respondent additionally provides an extract from the Data Centrum Institute report of October 2012 'Baseline Study Report on Domestic Violence and Albanian State Police', which concludes that there is a " well-structured and functional vertical organisation and reporting line regarding domestic violence within the Albanian state police." The same document describes central and regional Child Protection and Domestic Violence sectors. The respondent previously referred to the Data Centrum Study in her decision dated 17 November 2014, which was incorporated into her July 2017 decision. In her earlier decision the respondent quoted from a Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board report indicating that police arrested 119 people for domestic violence in 2012, up from 63 in 2011. The same report, referring to the Data Centrum Study, indicates that there are Child Protection and Domestic Violence units in Tirana (consisting of 4 employees), in Fieri (consisting of 2 employees, and one employee each of the remaining regional units in Shkodra, Dibra, Kukes, Lezha, Vlora, Gjirokastra, Korca, Berat, Durres and Elbasan. Several sources indicated that 100 police officers had received training on domestic violence as of April 2013 as well as 1800 health and social workers.

20.   The respondent also relies on the CPIN of July 2017, and in particular the issue of protection at section 2.2 and specifically at 2.2.6 which indicates that, in general, a person fearing non-state actors is likely to be able to obtain effective state protection, but that each case has to be determined on its own facts. The CPIN document dated July 2017 indicates, at 2.2, that Albania has a fully functioning police and judicial system, that civilian authorities generally maintain effective control over the police but there are instances of corruption and of the police having committed abuses, that the government has internal mechanisms to investigate and punish police abuse and corruption, that Albania also has an independent ombudsman who processes complaints including those against police officers, and that in general, a person fearing non-”state (including 'rogue' state) actors is likely to be able to obtain effective state protection, although each case has to be determined on its own facts.

21.   In her July 2017 decision, while accepting that corruption remained a problem within the Albanian police force, the respondent considers that anticorruption efforts are being imposed in Albania and supports her assertion by reference to several extracts from the Country Information and Guidance (CIG) document 'Albania: Background Information, including actors of protection, and internal relocation' Version 1.0 August 2015. The respondent additionally cites information gleaned from the Information and Refugee Board of Canada in respect of the right to complain against police officers and the process for doing so.

22.   In her 2017 decision the respondent considers Ms Young's country report dated 27 August 2015 and, having accepted that she is a suitable expert, concludes, having regard to the aforementioned evidence, that there is a sufficiency of protection to the Horvath [2000] UKHL 37 standard in Albania.

23.   Having considered the above evidence I find that the Albanian authorities have enacted legislative provisions to criminalise domestic violence and that they have established Child Protection and Domestic Violence units at a regional level. I note however that there is no unit in the appellant's home area. I additionally note the limited number of staff associated with these units. I fully accept that there has been large-scale training of the police in respect of domestic violence, but, other than by reference to an increase in the number of people arrested for domestic violence between 2011 and 2012, the background evidence advanced and relied on by the respondent does not describe how the legislative provisions and the Domestic Violence units operate in practice. Nor does the background evidence relied on by the respondent describe societal attitudes towards domestic violence, particularly in the north of the country.

24.   In Part 3 of her addendum expert report Ms Young states that, despite legislation, domestic violence remains a major issue in Albania. Ms Young maintain that society in northern Albania is more conservative and traditional in attitude than the rest of the country, an observation supported by evidence in earlier CG cases ( EH (blood feuds) Albania CG [2012] UKUT 348 (IAC) and TD and AD (Trafficked women) CG [2016] UKUT 92 (IAC)). The expert states that domestic violence is extremely common in Albania and considered to be a matter of solely family concern. In areas where traditional Kannun law is observed, particularly in the North, violence within the family has never been considered to be of relevance to outsiders. It is hard to change this attitude and the attitude of family members that the reporting of family violence itself brings shame to the family. She supports her assertions by reference to several reports including the Journal of Law, Policy and Globalisation, volume 13, 2013, which maintains that the culture of impunity in respect of domestic violence remains problematic. These observations are in turn consistent with the evidence given by the appellant to the effect that domestic violence and abuse is considered a family issue in Albania and that the police are reluctant to intervene, a view reinforced by the (in)actions appellant's mother and paternal uncle.

25.   Ms Young explains that the severe domestic and sexual abuse suffered by the appellant is likely to be a source of stigma rather than sympathy or support in Albania. She quotes from a Home Office fact-finding mission dated February 2018 which noted that traditional values do sometimes impact on police thinking and that there had been cases where the police tried to negotiate with the victim to go back to the perpetrator of the violence. The expert also quotes from an Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada report dealing with domestic violence in Albania, dated 30 April 2014, stating that domestic violence is widespread and survivors rarely receive justice, and notes the findings of a Working Paper "Understanding Trafficking of Girls and Women from Albania", 2017, that implementation of the legal and policy frameworks remains problematic and that commitments on paper not always translated into practice. The expert concludes that Albanian society and state agents in practice are likely to consider that the appellant's rightful place is with his family. She additionally states that, to her own knowledge, she does not know of any vulnerable men who have been allocated accommodation by the state and that, despite assurances by directors of shelters for women that such provision is made, her contacts have all denied the existence of such provision.

26.   Ms Young quotes from TD and AD (Trafficked women) CG [2016] UKUT 92 (IAC) and the South-East European Leadership for Development and Integrity report, 2016, in respect of the continued existence of corruption, and the perception of corruption, within Albania. In reliance upon a number of reports, including those by Transparency International, she states that corruption at all levels of Albanian society is endemic, despite considerable attempts to address it. This includes police corruption. She notes a Transparency International 2016 assessment on Albania which stated that, " the culture of impunity, lack of rule of law and rampant corruption are issues to be dealt with urgently." In part 4 of her report Ms Young quotes from the US State Department 2014 Human Rights Report on Albania which states that personal associations, political and criminal connections, poor infrastructure, lack of equipment, and inadequate supervision often influenced enforcement of laws, and low salaries, poor motivation and leadership, and a lack of diversity in the workforce contributed to continued corruption and unprofessional behaviour. The Transparency International 2016 report indicated that the positive impact of pay rises was hampered by high staff turnover and that there was one police officer per 400 inhabitants.

27.   I find there is no material conflict between the facts set out in the various documents relied on by the respondent, and those considered and relied on by Ms Young. Rather, the country expert has considered the manner in which the legislative and administrative protections afforded to victims of domestic violence have been implemented in the particular context of a socially conservative part of Albania. Ms Young's report is, for the most part, adequately referenced and her expertise was accepted by the respondent in her July 2017 decision (at paragraph 21).

28.   Having considered and evaluated the documentary evidence relied on by both parties and applying the Horvath [2000] UKHL 37 test in respect of the availability of a sufficiency of protection I find that, although there is in general a sufficiency of protection for victims of domestic violence, a sufficiency of protection is not available to this particular appellant in his home area. Following the very serious abuse the appellant did attempt to obtain protection from the police but he was not allowed to register a complaint and his father was informed of his attempt to do so. I attach weight to the evidence contained in Ms Young's report concerning the conservative nature of the appellant's home area and the widespread belief that issues of domestic violence are matters solely for family concern. I additionally attach weight to her observation, supported by appropriate references, that the legislative provisions criminalising domestic violence and protecting victims suffer from problematic implementation. This is reinforced by reference to the evidence, common to both the expert report and the documentation relied on by the respondent, of the widespread corruption in Albania. I am persuaded, on the lower standard of proof, having cumulative regard to these factors, that the authorities in the appellant's home area are unable or unwilling to provide him with a sufficiency of protection.

 

Internal relocation

29.   I must now consider whether it would be unreasonable or unduly harsh to expect this appellant to avail himself of the internal relocation alternative. Such an assessment must take into account the appellant's particular characteristics.

30.   I note first the findings of Dr Sarah Heke, a Consultant Clinical Psychologist, in her report on the appellant dated 21 August 2017. This report was based on a 1½ hour interview with the appellant and was written with sight of the witness statements, the two Reasons For Refusal Letters, the appellant's asylum interview and his medical evidence. The medical expert diagnosed the appellant as suffering from moderately severe Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and a Major Depressive Disorder. If he is unable to receive appropriate treatment he will continue to suffer from moderately severe PTSD which is having a detrimental impact on his functioning, well-being and quality of life. The Consultant Psychologist found that the appellant is highly dependent on the support of others and although he can engage in some daily living skills independently he lacks the coping resources to be able to fend for himself, particularly in relation to gaining any employment, finding accommodation etc. Dr Keke found that the appellant lacks resources and skills to protect himself from exploitation by others and, facing destitution, he would be potentially vulnerable to exploitation. He is said to be a very traumatised young man who is overwhelmed by the intrusive images of the past abuse and experiences significant shame. Although he is able tolerate this in a highly supportive environment in the UK this is likely to be considerably more difficult for him to tolerate if alone and potentially destitute in Albania without his family network.

31.   In her letter dated 28 March 2018 Donna Maynard confirmed that the appellant is a former Looked After Child who is currently being supported by the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames as a Child Leaving Care under the Children Leaving Care Act 2000. She has personally been working with the appellant since May 2016 and remains as his permanent personal adviser in the Leaving Care/UASC Team. She stated that the appellant finds it difficult to build good relationships with other professionals and needs to meet them several times before he is sufficiently comfortable to meet them alone. She meets the appellant more regularly than any other young person with whom she works, which is an indication of his vulnerability. The appellant rings her on a daily basis for minor issues which indicates to Ms Maynard that he would not be able to live independently at this time. He is dependent on the team and on Ms Maynard for activities that he should be able to complete for himself at his age, such as registering with a dentist and attending hospital appointments. He needs a lot of emotional support from his friends and the professionals around him and, at times, he appears extremely vulnerable. As a result, he is not ready to be moved to independent accommodation. The appellant finds it very difficult to talk about his family and his life before he came to the UK. On occasions when Ms Maynard has tried to discuss the appellant's history with him he has "shutdown" and tries to leave the room. It was felt that the appellant is going to need ongoing support until at least the age of 25 years old and possibly longer. He does not have the independence skills for his case to be closed and for him to live on his own by the age of 21. In her opinion Ms Maynard did not think that the appellant would be able to cope well if returned to Albania as he is not confident enough in his abilities to be able to live without support. At the end of her letter she states that the appellant is nowhere near ready to be living independently in the UK or in Albania.

32.   In oral evidence Ms Maynard confirmed her experience over the past 10 years of dealing with an unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and confirmed that her current caseload consists of 27 individuals. Her contact with the appellant was far in excess of that she had with her other charges. She spoke to the appellant on an almost daily basis. When asked how many other young people would be unable to live independently by the age of 25 she stated that, out of 300 children that she dealt with, only 2 or 3 would be unable. It was her professional view that the appellant will still be supported after his 25 ^th birthday. This was based on an assessment based on an independent skills checklist which included the ability to arrange and pay, arrange a tenancy, cooking and changing lightbulbs. She did not believe that the appellant would be capable of looking after himself without support in Albania. She stated that the appellant was a vulnerable young man who wanted to be liked by a lot of people and that he could be easily led. The possibility of counselling had been discussed and they were waiting to see if he would get it.

33.   I have carefully considered the Consultant Clinical Psychologist's report and the evidence from Ms Maynard. I find that the appellant is a vulnerable and traumatised young man who requires a high degree of support and is potentially vulnerable to exploitation. I attach particular significance to the professional view of Ms Maynard who believes that the appellant is currently unable to live independently and that this may continue for some years. This is a significant factor to bear in mind when considering whether the appellant can reasonably be expected to live in another part of Albania.

34.   The accepted factual matrix indicates that the appellant's maternal uncle, who lives in Tirana, has his own family, including a wife and 5 children. At no stage when the appellant lived in Albania did his uncle offer to permanently accommodate him, and the uncle only agreed to help the appellant because his mother had requested it. In any event, the appellant fears that if he lived with his maternal uncle his father would become aware of this and that the appellant's safety, and that of his maternal uncle and his family, would be put in jeopardy. Given the very serious ill-treatment suffered by the appellant and the threats to kill him issued by his father, I find there is a real risk that the appellant's father would locate him if he lived with his uncle and that the appellant and his uncle's family may be exposed to a real risk of serious harm. I consequently find that it is unreasonable, or unduly harsh, to expect the appellant to live with his maternal uncle. Moreover, given these concerns there is a real risk that the appellant's uncle would not be willing to financially support the appellant, even if he were able to do so. Although the maternal uncle owns a fuel station there is nothing to indicate that he is particularly wealthy and he has his own large family to support. I note, according to the appellant's evidence, that it took the maternal uncle some time to amass the funds needed to send the appellant to the UK. The evidence indicates that the appellant's mother and sister, who appear to continue to live with the appellant's father, are fearful of the appellant's father and that they would be unable to support the appellant in any material manner. His two younger brothers are only around 14 years old and 10 years old and are therefore unable to provide any support to the appellant. I'm satisfied, on the lower standard of proof, that the appellant does not have access to a family support network. Although the respondent contends that the appellant would be able to access shelters for victims of domestic violence, the documentation relied on by the respondent appears to solely relate to women and children. As Mr Nath accepted, the respondent has not produced any evidence that shelters for adult male victims of domestic violence are available, and Ms Young indicated that no such shelters are, to her knowledge, available.

35.   In her addendum expert report Ms Young highlights the high unemployment level in Albania and notes that jobs are usually obtained through family connections or through bribes, an assertion supported by reference to email correspondence and the 2016 Transparency International report. The appellant is therefore likely to encounter significant difficulties in finding employment. She also maintains, with supporting reference, that people with disabilities both physical and mental, especially those with no support family network, are severely ostracised by Albanian society. She also refers to the US State Department report for 2016 which indicates that there is pervasive corruption in all branches of government, particularly in the healthcare systems. Although public healthcare is supposed to be free riding doctors for the services is a widespread phenomenon. The appellant remains a vulnerable and traumatised young man with relatively limited qualifications (he has studied carpentry, maths and English but at a relatively low level), no family network and no work experience who, in the view of a professional social worker, lacks the skills to live independently, who requires a high level of support and who is potentially susceptible to exploitation. I am satisfied, having considered the evidence before me on the lower standard of proof, that these factors cumulatively render the internal relocation option unreasonable or unduly harsh.

36.   Having found that the appellant will be exposed to a real risk of persecution in his home area, and that he cannot be reasonably expected to avail himself of the internal relocation alternative, I find that the appellant succeeds in his protection claim.

 

Article 8

37.   In light of my assessment of the protection appeal, I need only deal briefly with the separate article 8 claim. In paragraph 276ADE of the immigration rules the respondent considers where the proper balance lies in respect of a claim made on the basis of the private life established by a person. In order to be granted leave to remain on the basis of their private life rights paragraph 276ADE (1)(vi) requires a person who is aged 18 years or above and has lived continuously in the UK for less than 20 years to demonstrate that there are 'very significant obstacles' to their integration into the country of origin. I'm satisfied, primarily for the reasons set out in paragraphs 30 to 35 above, that there are very significant obstacles to the appellant's integration in Albania in light of his mental health diagnosis, his vulnerability, his high support needs, his inability to live independently, his lack of any family support, the difficulties he will encounter in accessing accommodation and employment, and his abiding fear that he will be discovered by his father.

 

Notice of Decision

The First-tier Tribunal's decision is set aside; I remake the decision allowing the appellant's appeal in respect of his protection claim and his human rights claim.

 

Direction Regarding Anonymity - Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008

Unless and until a Tribunal or court directs otherwise, the appellant in this appeal is granted anonymity. No report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify him or any member of his family. This direction applies both to the appellant and to the respondent. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to contempt of court proceedings.

 

 

23 April 2018

Signed Date

 

Upper Tribunal Judge Blum