Clarifying Sequential Risk Assessment in Asylum Claims: EI v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Introduction

EI v Secretary of State for the Home Department ([2025] EWCA Civ 556) is a significant Court of Appeal decision delivered on 30 April 2025. The appellant, a national of Albania, challenged the Upper Tribunal’s (UT) decision setting aside her grant of asylum by the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) and ultimately dismissing her appeal. At its core, the case concerns the assessment of risk on return to the applicant’s country of origin, the adequacy of state protection, and the feasibility of internal relocation. The Court reaffirmed the proper sequential approach to evaluating asylum and humanitarian protection claims, clarified the nature of evaluative findings, and underlined that the passage of time can diminish the likelihood of repeat persecution.

Summary of the Judgment

Lord Justice Whipple, with whom Underhill and Peter Jackson LJJ agreed, dismissed EI’s appeal in full. The Court upheld Deputy UT Judge Hanbury’s analysis that:

There was no real risk of serious harm to EI if she returned to Albania, despite past incidents of violence and sexual assault.
The Albanian state’s protection mechanisms—police intervention and shelters—were generally sufficient and not shown to be inadequate in EI’s case.
EI could relocate internally to Tirana without undue hardship, relying on the city’s size, anonymity and available support services.
Consequently, EI failed to satisfy the thresholds for refugee status (no “well-founded fear” of Convention persecution) or humanitarian protection (“real risk” of serious harm), and her Article 8 ECHR private‐life claim also failed.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The Judgment draws on and applies established authorities:

TD and AD (Trafficked Women) (CG) [2016] UKUT 92 – confirms that Albania generally offers sufficient state protection against private‐actor violence unless specific evidence indicates otherwise.
Immigration Rules Part 11 (paras 327–339): defines asylum (refugee status) and humanitarian protection thresholds and emphasises that past persecution is a strong indicator of future risk absent good reasons to the contrary.
Paragraph PL5.1 / 276ADE (Immigration Rules): sets out the “very significant obstacles” test under Article 8 ECHR private‐life claims.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolds in a logical sequence:

Risk Assessment: The UT properly re-evaluated the likelihood of future harm, treating “risk” as an evaluative conclusion (mixed law and fact) rather than a pure finding of fact immune from reassessment. Past incidents—harassment, assault, rape—were acknowledged, but the UT concluded that no active threats had continued for over five years and that time had eroded the motivation of former aggressors.
State Protection: Although EI reported past poor police responses, the UT relied on the general rule from TD & AD that Albanian authorities usually intervene effectively against criminal violence, and found no case-specific evidence to override that general position. Availability of shelters for women at risk further supported sufficiency of protection.
Internal Relocation: The UT applied the “unduly harsh” standard, comparing living conditions within Albania rather than against UK standards. It concluded that EI, a well-educated woman, could sustain herself and her three children in Tirana, a large city where she could remain anonymous and utilise social support services.
Asylum / Humanitarian Protection Eligibility: Having found no real risk, the Court did not need to decide whether EI belonged to a “Particular Social Group.” The absence of risk meant she could not satisfy either the refugee Convention test (well-founded fear) or the humanitarian protection test (real risk of serious harm).
Article 8 ECHR Claim: The UT applied the “insurmountable obstacles” test (though mistakenly termed in one paragraph) but had correctly directed itself elsewhere to the “very significant obstacles” standard. Balancing enforcement of immigration control against EI’s private life in the UK, the Court held removal proportionate and necessary.

3. Impact

This decision reinforces and clarifies:

The correct sequential approach in asylum cases: assess risk first; if risk established, then consider state protection; if risk remains, consider internal relocation; only thereafter address Convention grounds and Article 8 claims.
That courts may revisit evaluative judgments on risk even where underlying facts are preserved from the FTT.
The significance of time in risk assessments—elapsed time since persecution can diminish the likelihood of recurrence.
The continued viability of the general rule in TD & AD regarding Albania’s protective capacity, subject to contrary case-specific evidence.
A reminder that Article 8 private-life claims are assessed against domestic living conditions and must present “very significant” or “insurmountable” obstacles to integration.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Well-Founded Fear (Refugee Convention): A genuine risk of persecution for a Convention reason (race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group).
Real Risk (Humanitarian Protection): A substantial likelihood of serious harm (e.g., torture, inhuman treatment) if returned, even without a Convention ground.
Particular Social Group (PSG): A group of persons who share an innate characteristic or common background, whose membership distinguishes them in society, and whose shared characteristic is the reason for persecution.
State Protection: Assessment whether the country’s authorities can and will protect the person from private-actor or public-actor harm.
Internal Relocation: Whether an applicant can reasonably and safely live in another part of their home country to avoid risk.
Article 8 ECHR Private Life Claim: A challenge to removal based on the right to respect for private and family life, requiring proof of very significant obstacles to integration in the destination country.

Conclusion

EI v Secretary of State for the Home Department reaffirmed the proper sequential framework for asylum and humanitarian protection assessments. The Court clarified that evaluative judgments on risk may be revisited on appeal, that the passage of years can neutralise motivations for persecution, and that state protection and internal relocation must be measured against domestic realities. The decision strengthens procedural clarity and confirms the enduring relevance of TD & AD (Trafficked Women) on Albania. Practitioners and tribunals should apply this ruling when structuring and scrutinising the risk–protection–relocation analysis in future claims.