TD and AD (Trafficked women)(CG)

Factual and Procedural Background

This decision concerns two appeals by women from Albania who were trafficked for sexual exploitation and subsequently found to be at risk of persecution in their home areas. The Secretary of State accepted that they could not safely rejoin or rely on their families if returned. The core dispute was whether internal relocation within Albania would be unduly harsh and whether they would be vulnerable to re-exploitation despite reintegration services offered by the Albanian state, NGOs, and international organisations. The First-tier Tribunal had dismissed the appeals, finding internal relocation reasonable based on shelter availability and support packages. The Upper Tribunal found an error of law in these decisions due to inadequate reasons for departing from existing country guidance and remitted the case for reconsideration with updated country guidance.

The appeals were heard with extensive evidence, including expert reports, NGO testimony, and documentary materials addressing the reintegration framework for victims of trafficking (VOTs) in Albania. The Tribunal considered the operation of the National Referral Mechanism (NRM), shelter conditions, reintegration programmes such as the IOM's Reintegrating Albanian Victims of Trafficking (RAVT), and the socio-economic and psychological challenges faced by returning VOTs. The Tribunal also examined the individual circumstances and medical evidence relating to the appellants.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether it is reasonable to expect trafficked women from Albania to internally relocate within Albania, considering the availability and effectiveness of state and NGO reintegration services.
2. Whether the reintegration packages and shelters provide sufficient protection against risks including re-trafficking and persecution.
3. The assessment of the appellants’ individual circumstances, including their mental health and social vulnerabilities, in determining the reasonableness of internal relocation.
4. The extent of the Secretary of State's obligations under international anti-trafficking conventions to provide ongoing assistance and review of decisions relating to VOTs.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal conducted a comprehensive review of the evidence concerning the reintegration framework for victims of trafficking in Albania. It acknowledged the existence of a functioning National Referral Mechanism (NRM) involving multiple government ministries and cooperation with NGOs, which provides identification, referral, and assistance to returning VOTs. The Tribunal accepted that shelters, including the government-run Linza centre and three NGO shelters, provide basic accommodation, food, healthcare, psychosocial counselling, vocational training, and limited childcare. However, it found that the shelters suffer from precarious funding, limited long-term support, and inadequate mental health services, with psychological support largely limited to medication and basic counselling by non-specialists.

The Tribunal noted that reintegration packages such as the IOM's RAVT programme are voluntary and designed to empower VOTs, but cautioned that these cannot be relied upon as protection measures in asylum decisions. The Tribunal recognized the socio-economic difficulties faced by VOTs post-shelter, including stigma, social isolation, financial hardship, lack of secure employment, and absence of social housing provisions. It accepted that these factors cumulatively may render internal relocation unduly harsh for some individuals, especially those with mental health vulnerabilities.

Regarding safety within shelters, the Tribunal found no evidence of women being abducted from shelters but acknowledged risks of re-trafficking upon leaving shelters, especially for those lacking family support or suffering psychological impairments. It recognized ongoing concerns about police corruption and the risk that some officials might betray VOTs’ locations to hostile family members or traffickers, but found no general objective risk that this occurs routinely within the NRM framework.

The Tribunal gave significant weight to expert medical evidence from Dr Agnew-Davies, who diagnosed both appellants with complex post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depressive disorder, concluding that their mental health conditions severely impair their ability to live independently and protect themselves. It found that both appellants would face very significant obstacles to integration in Albania, including heightened risk of re-trafficking, social exclusion, and deterioration of mental health, which would likely lead to suicidal ideation or attempts.

Applying the legal framework, including the Qualification Directive and domestic case law, the Tribunal reaffirmed the principle that internal relocation must be reasonable and not impose undue hardship, considering individual circumstances such as age, health, social situation, and psychological state. It concluded that while the general reintegration framework in Albania meets a basic standard of protection, it is insufficient for the appellants given their particular vulnerabilities and circumstances.

Accordingly, the Tribunal found no safe internal relocation option for the appellants and ruled that their removal would breach the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It also found that the appellants meet the criteria for leave to remain under the Immigration Rules based on very significant obstacles to integration.

Holding and Implications

The appeals of both appellants are ALLOWED ON ASYLUM GROUNDS and on human rights grounds. Neither appellant is entitled to humanitarian protection as they qualify as refugees.

The direct effect of this decision is that the appellants cannot be removed to Albania due to the lack of a safe and reasonable internal relocation option and the risk of persecution or inhuman or degrading treatment. The decision emphasizes the importance of considering individual vulnerabilities, particularly mental health and social isolation, in assessing internal flight. No broader precedent beyond the facts of these cases is established, but the decision updates and reaffirms the country guidance on trafficking victims’ internal relocation in Albania.