UNHCR is not responsible for the content and availability of non-UNHCR websites. Content displays in a new window.
DC (trafficking: protection/human rights appeals) Albania [2019] UKUT 00351 (IAC)
In the light of the judgment of Flaux LJ in Secretary of State for the Home Department v MS (Pakistan) [2018] EWCA Civ 594 and subsequent decisions of the Upper Tribunal and Administrative Court, a tribunal deciding a protection or human rights appeal, which concerns alleged trafficking within the scope of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings and decisions of the Competent Authority (CA) under the United Kingdom’s National Referral Mechanism, should proceed as follows: (a) In a protection appeal, the “reasonable grounds” or “conclusive grounds” decision of the CA will be part of the evidence that the tribunal will have to assess in reaching its decision on that appeal, giving the CA’s decision such weight as is due, bearing in mind that the standard of proof applied by the CA in a “conclusive grounds” decision was the balance of probabilities. (b) In a human rights appeal, a finding by the tribunal that the CA has failed to reach a rational decision on whether the appellant has been the victim of trafficking, such as to be eligible for leave to remain in the United Kingdom for that reason alone, may lead the tribunal to allow the human rights appeal, on the basis that removing the appellant at this stage would be a disproportionate interference with the appellant’s Article 8 ECHR rights. This scenario is, however, of narrow ambit and is unlikely to be much encountered in practice. (c) In a human rights appeal, the question whether the appellant has been the victim of trafficking may be relevant to the issue of whether the appellant’s removal would breach the ECHR, even where it is not asserted there is a trafficking-related risk of harm in the country of proposed return and irrespective of what is said in sub-paragraph (b) above: e.g. where the fact of trafficking may have caused the appellant physical or psychological harm. Here, as in sub-paragraph (a) above, the CA’s decision on past trafficking will be part of the evidence to be assessed by the tribunal. 13 November 2019 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Standard of proof - Trafficking in persons | Countries: Albania - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
ES (s82 NIA 2002; negative NRM) Albania [2018] UKUT 00335 (IAC)
1. Following the amendment to s 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 ('the 2002 Act'), effective from 20 October 2014, a previous decision made by the Competent Authority within the National Referral Mechanism (made on the balance of probabilities) is not of primary relevance to the determination of an asylum appeal, despite the decisions of the Court of Appeal in AS (Afghanistan) v SSHD [2013] EWCA Civ 1469 and SSHD v MS (Pakistan) [2018] EWCA Civ 594. 2. The correct approach to determining whether a person claiming to be a victim of trafficking is entitled to asylum is to consider all the evidence in the round as at the date of hearing, applying the lower standard of proof. 3. Since 20 October 2014, there is also no right of appeal on the basis that a decision is not in accordance with the law and the grounds of appeal are limited to those set out in the amended s 82 of the 2002 Act. 29 October 2018 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Social group persecution - Standard of proof - Trafficking in persons | Countries: Albania - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
HD (Trafficked women) Nigeria CG
The guidance set out in PO (trafficked women) Nigeria [2009] UKAIT 00046 at paragraphs 191-192 should no longer be followed. 17 October 2016 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Survivors of trafficking / Persons at risk of trafficking - Trafficking in persons - Women-at-risk | Countries: Nigeria - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
MS (Trafficking – Tribunal's Powers – Art. 4 ECHR) Pakistan
13 May 2016 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Trafficking in persons | Countries: Pakistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
TD and AD (Trafficked women)(CG) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department
23 February 2016 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Survivors of trafficking / Persons at risk of trafficking - Trafficking in persons - Women-at-risk | Countries: Albania - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
Nguyen (Anti-Trafficking Convention: respondent's duties) v. The Secretary of State for the Home Department
25 March 2015 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Survivors of trafficking / Persons at risk of trafficking - Trafficking in persons | Countries: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - Viet Nam |
EK (Article 4 ECHR: Anti-Trafficking Convention) Tanzania v. Secretary of State for the Home Department
19 June 2013 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Countries: Tanzania, United Republic of - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
SHL (Tracing obligation/Trafficking) Afghanistan v. Secretary of State for the Home Department
16 June 2013 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Countries: Afghanistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
AZ (Trafficked women) Thailand v. Secretary of State for the Home Department
The case summary in English has been prepared in the framework of the Knowledge-Based Harmonisation of European Asylum Practices Project (2010-2012), co-financed by the European Refugee Fund. 8 April 2010 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Country of origin information (COI) - Illegal entry - Prostitution / Commercial sex work - Social group persecution - Trafficking in persons - Women-at-risk | Countries: Thailand - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
AM and BM (Trafficked women) Albania v. Secretary of State for the Home Department
The case summary in English has been prepared in the framework of the Knowledge-Based Harmonisation of European Asylum Practices Project (2010-2012), co-financed by the European Refugee Fund. 18 March 2010 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Country of origin information (COI) - Effective protection - Illegitimate children - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Mental health - Non-state agents of persecution - Prostitution / Commercial sex work - Reintegration - Social group persecution - State protection - Trafficking in persons - Women-at-risk | Countries: Albania - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |