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-2024-004496
	First-tier Tribunal No: PA/56814/2023 LP/03263/2024

 

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

13 ^th January 2025

 

Before

 

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RIMINGTON

DEPUTY JUDGE BEACH OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL

 

Between

 

US

(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)

Appellant

and

 

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Ms Radford, Counsel instructed by Tuckers Solicitors

For the Respondent: Mrs Nolan, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

 

Heard at Field House on 12 ^th December 2024

 

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 appeals against the decision of First-tier Tribunal ("FtT") Judge Rothwell, ("the judge") dated 27 ^th July 2024 dismissing the appellant's appeal.

2.              The appellant is a citizen of Albania, born on the 10 ^th of December 1991, who claimed asylum on the basis that he was at risk of persecution of serious harm from the Kumbari (Bajri) gang and a trafficker called Gjergi. The appellant stated that he was taken to work on a cannabis farm in Albania, where he worked for two weeks, that he later escaped and that he reported the farm to two different police stations but was beaten up by police. The appellant's account is that he left Albania and travelled to Belgium where Gjergi trafficked him to the UK to work from whom he subsequently managed to escape. He entered the UK on or about May 2011 and claimed asylum on 30 ^th July 2021. His claim for asylum was refused on 30 ^th August 2023 and he appealed against that decision. On 22 ^nd February 2024, the NRM made a positive reasonable grounds decision that the appellant was a victim of modern slavery. On 18 ^th July 2024, the appellant received a positive conclusive grounds decision.

3.              The grounds for permission to appeal were submitted on the following narrow grounds:

                              (i)                    Failure to take adequate account of the expert report of Antonia Young, in particular a failure to consider the evidence in the report that organised criminal gangs in Albania are far reaching

                            (ii)                    Failure to give adequate reasons for the judge reaching her conclusions in light of the evidence in the expert report of Antonia Young that organised criminal gangs are easily able to trace people within Albania

4.              Permission was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Norton-Taylor who, in a decision dated 10 ^th October 2024, stated that it was arguable that aspects of the report regarding the reach and methods of the organised criminal gang ("OCG") were not clearly considered by the judge.

The Hearing

5.              At the hearing, Ms Radford expanded on the grounds of appeal and took the Tribunal through the expert report of Ms Young. She submitted that the judge had not fully explained why the appellant would not be traced by the gangs if he returned to Albania and that the judge had not taken full account of the expert report. Ms Radford said that the judge had accepted that the appellant was trafficked by a gang in Albania and taken to a drugs' farm, that police officers were involved at the farm and that when he tried to report it to two different police stations, the appellant was beaten up by the police. She said that the judge also accepted that the appellant was trafficked a second time by a different gang who took him from Belgium to the UK and trafficked him within the UK. Ms Radford submitted that having accepted this, the judge failed to take proper and full account of the expert report of Ms Young when assessing the risk to the appellant on return to Albania.

6.              Ms Radford further submitted that what was missing was a consideration of what the expert said about the fact that the gang is still operating and the fact that, generally in Albania, OCGs tend to be large and sophisticated and also tend to feature State actors embedded in them and work together with other gangs. She referred to Page 1 of the report and the reference to the news articles regarding the gang. Ms Radford accepted that Ms Young did not then mention the particular gang feared by the appellant by name but did talk about OCGs in general in Section 3 of the report and said that in general they are large, sophisticated and well-organised before considering internal relocation. She referred to Section 7 of the report and said that Ms Young concluded that the appellant's account, were he to return to his home area, gave reasons for him to fear reprisal from the gang and dealt with State protection and internal relocation. Ms Radford submitted that it was clearly the opinion of Ms Young that this particular gang was part of a large, organised group and still posed a risk to the appellant despite one high profile member having been killed and another imprisoned. She said that the judge had failed to properly consider the continued reach of the gang despite the fact that one member had been killed and another imprisoned. Ms Radford further submitted that the judge had erred in finding that the fact that the appellant had not been tracked down in the UK meant that there was no continued interest in him but no evidence was identified by the Judge to show that gangs did typically track people down in the UK. She referred to the decisions in AM & BM (Trafficked women) Albania CG [2010] UKUT 80 (IAC) and BF (Tirana - gay men) Albania [2019] UKUT 93 (IAC) and said that these decisions confirmed that people were easily traced in Albania by word of mouth.

7.              Mrs Nolan relied on the Rule 24 response which had opposed the appeal. She submitted that, throughout the decision, the judge had considered the report of Ms Young. She said that the judge must consider all material evidence but the weight to be afforded to that evidence was a matter for the judge. Mrs Nolan referred to Paragraph 33 of the decision where the Judge found that there was no well founded fear due to the passage of time and intervening events even when the report of Ms Young was taken into account. She said that it was not accepted that the brother's claim for asylum was linked in any way to the events which occurred to the appellant. She said that the reference in Ms Young's report to risk of re-trafficking related to those without family support but that the judge clearly took this into account having found that the appellant was in contact with his family and his family ran a bakery. Mrs Nolan said that the expert report did not make specific reference to the particular gangs which the appellant claimed to fear. She said that, with regard to tracing the appellant, Ms Young's report was generic and discussed the general reach of gangs. She said that the judge concluded that the appellant's ex-partner had connections with Albania and the appellant had contact with the Albanian community in the UK which was another factor she considered when assessing the risk from the gangs. Mrs Nolan submitted that the judge took account of all the relevant factors and considered the report of Ms Young but found that there was no risk on return.

8.              In response, Ms Radford submitted that there was a missing link in the chain of reasoning because of the need to consider tracing and whether the gang was still operating in the context of the report. She said that the judge had not shown that she had undertaken that analysis.

Analysis

9.              The first narrow ground of appeal related to the judge's analysis of the expert report before her. The appellant was critical of the judge's analysis of that report, in particular, her failure to consider the reach of the gang and their ability and willingness to trace the appellant on his return to Albania, the lack of State protection and the difficulties in internally relocating in Albania.

10.          On considering the report of Ms Young, it is notable that the only explicit reference to the gang by whom the appellant was trafficked within Albania, the Kumbari (or Bajri) gang, is with reference to the news articles relating to the arrest and imprisonment of Bajri [P.1 of the report]. There was no specific identification of a link between the Kumbari and Gjergi in Belgium.

11.          The judge's findings with regard to the likely risk to the appellant on return to Albania took account of the passage of time and intervening events since the events took place [33], the lack of credibility in relation to the appellant's contact with his family, the contact which the appellant's ex-partner and child had with his family [37], the lack of evidence of continued threats from the gang against either the appellant or his family [37], the fact that the appellant's brother's claim for asylum was unconnected to the events leading to the appellant's claim for asylum and that the brother made no mention of the Kumbari [36] and the appellant's connections to the Albanian community in the UK [39]. All of those factors were cogent factors to be considered when assessing a risk to the appellant. The appellant had not sought to challenge those findings in his application for permission to appeal.

12.          Although the judge accepted the basic account of the appellant having worked on a drugs' farm and being trafficked from Belgium, the judge did not accept that the appellant had been disowned by his family for his former activity or there was any ongoing interest in the appellant. The judge properly reasoned not only her adverse findings as to the appellant's account of being disowned by and contact with his family but at [37] referenced that the ex-partner with whom the appellant has a child did have contact with the family. The ex-partner refers to the asylum claim and to his fears but made absolutely no mention of any contact made by any of the gang to the family in Albania in her witness statement. As the judge concluded at [37], noting the appellant asserted contact by the gang in Albania to the family in 2019 'If there were ongoing threats relating to this appellant, I cannot see why his father would not mention this to E.S [EH] during their What's App contact.' The judge properly reasoned the rejection of the lack of interest by the gang in Albania.

13.          In making that assessment, the judge also clearly considered the report of Ms Young. The judge notes that the report makes reference to gangs operating and requesting protection money [36] and that the gang have not traced the appellant in the UK despite 'their connections as outlined by Antonia Young' [39].

14.          Ms Young's report addresses the difficulty in an individual internally relocating within Albania if they are being pursued by gang members [Section 5 of the report]. However, that is only relevant once a risk has been established in the home area. The judge had made clear, with reasoned findings as to why she did not consider there to be a risk to the appellant in his home area. There was, therefore, no need for the judge to go on to consider internal relocation.

15.          Ms Young's report did not set out that the gangs which the appellant stated he feared on return to Albania had reach either within Albania or outside Albania. There were general references to OCGs having reach both within Albania and outside Albania across Europe [3.08 of the report] but no specific consideration of this particular appellant's risk from these particular 2 gangs; the one in Albania and the one which trafficked him from Belgium to the UK and within the UK. The judge noted that the gang had not traced the appellant in the UK.

16.          Ms Young's report refers to an Organised Crime and Corruption Project article from 19 ^th November 2018 which stated:

'These gangs are far-reaching and particularly resilient "Albanian organised criminal gangs are operating at the higher end of sophistication and are certainly operating in the UK as they do within several other countries in western Europe" NCA deputy director Tom Dowdall told Sky News.'

17.          Whilst that article makes reference to the gangs being far reaching and operating across Europe, this does not, in itself, show that the gangs are either able or, indeed, willing to trace individuals such as the appellant who worked for them for a short period of time and who sought to report them to the police without success. There is no reference to any gangs specifically taking time to trace individuals either in Albania or the UK and no reference to the Kumbari (or Bajri) gang tracing individuals who had escaped from them and who had sought to report their treatment to the authorities; we note too that the reference to the appellant being an 'informant' [26] is perhaps a misnomer; the appellant sought to report what had happened to him (without success) but he was not an 'informant' in terms of providing information about the gang. It is simply too big a stretch to take the general reference to gangs being sophisticated and far-reaching to mean that they would aim to trace every individual who had escaped from them and who had unsuccessfully sought to report them to the authorities, particularly when considered in light of the judge's findings regarding the appellant's particular circumstances.

18.          The grounds argued that there was inadequate consideration of whether the gang continued to operate despite the killing of one member and the imprisonment of another and inadequate reasons of why the passage of time meant that there was no longer an interest in the appellant. We find that the judge has given clear reasons for her findings taking account of the appellant's particular circumstances when assessing risk. The report of Ms Young did not make specific reference to whether the gang which the appellant stated he feared in Albania was still operative after 2021 despite reference, at the beginning of her report, to being provided with the news articles regarding Bajri. It is difficult to see, therefore, how the judge could have made an assessment with regard to that particular gang from information given in the expert report. She did make clear reference to gangs having connections beyond Albania and found that this had not occurred to the appellant and that his family had not received any recent threats. It is clear, therefore, that she had in mind that OCGs were far-reaching and covered Europe as well as Albania when reaching her conclusions.

19.          The judge has made specific reference to Ms Young's report throughout her decision at paragraphs 33, 36 and 39. At paragraph 33, she states that she has taken account of Ms Young's report. She then makes specific reference to parts of the report at paragraphs 36 and 39 including consideration of the reach of OCGs at paragraph 39 of her decision where she specifically notes gang connections as set out in Ms Young's report.

20.          We find that the judge has properly considered the report of Ms Young when making her assessment of the evidence, that she has engaged with the expert report when assessing risk and that she has adequately taken account of the whole of the expert report. We further find that the report did not, in fact, specifically address the gangs which the appellant stated he fears or address their ability or willingness to trace the appellant. There was reliance on a generality that OCGs are far-reaching but this does not automatically mean that the gangs whom the appellant states he fears would have either the ability or willingness to trace the appellant. In any event, the judge clearly considered the reach of the gangs [39] and considered whether the appellant would be reasonably likely to be at risk from them on return to Albania. In making that assessment, the Judge took proper and adequate account of the expert report of Ms Young.

21.          We therefore find that there was no material error of law in the decision and the decision shall stand. The appellant's appeal remains dismissed.

 

F Beach

Deputy Judge Beach of the Upper Tribunal

Immigration and Asylum Chamber

23 ^rd December 2024