PA030752015

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, Secretary of State for the Home Department, appealed a First-tier Tribunal decision that allowed the Respondent's appeal against refusal of protection and human rights claims. The Respondent, a female national of Vietnam born in 1974, arrived in the UK in January 2009, claiming asylum under a different name. She had previously claimed asylum in Germany, which was refused in 2006. The Respondent was registered as an absconder and later convicted in the UK for cannabis cultivation, receiving an 18-month sentence. Following her release, she was served with a deportation decision and detained under immigration powers.

The Respondent was referred to the National Referral Mechanism as a potential Victim of Trafficking (VOT) in March 2015 and made an asylum application in April 2015. Her asylum claim detailed a history of trafficking and exploitation across several countries, including forced prostitution and abuse. Medical and expert reports diagnosed her with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Major Depressive Disorder, confirming her vulnerability.

The Appellant, acting as Competent Authority, initially found no reasonable grounds to suspect the Respondent was a VOT and refused her protection claim in November 2015, citing inconsistencies and implausibilities in her account. The Respondent appealed to the First-tier Tribunal, which allowed her appeal in January 2017. The Upper Tribunal later found an error of law in that decision, set it aside, and remade the decision dismissing the appeal in March 2018. The Court of Appeal granted permission to appeal the Upper Tribunal’s remade decision, ultimately ordering the Upper Tribunal to reconsider whether the First-tier Tribunal made an error of law.

The present appeal concerns whether the First-tier Tribunal judge erred in law in allowing the Respondent's appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the First-tier Tribunal judge made an error of law in allowing the Respondent's appeal against refusal of protection and human rights claims.
2. Whether the judge adequately considered the Competent Authority’s reasonable grounds decision and gave sufficient reasons for preferring expert evidence on trafficking.
3. Whether the judge erred in failing to consider alternative causes for the Respondent’s PTSD diagnosis.
4. Whether the judge failed to consider the extent to which the Respondent's family could provide support reducing the risk of harm or re-trafficking.
5. Whether the judge gave adequate reasons for concluding the Vietnamese authorities could not provide sufficient protection and that internal relocation was not reasonable.
6. Whether the judge erred in not considering the reported case of Nguyen (Anti-Trafficking Convention: respondent's duties) [2015] UKUT 170 (IAC).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge misdirected himself by failing to adequately consider the Competent Authority’s reasonable grounds decision.
• The judge failed to give adequate reasons for preferring the Respondent’s expert witnesses’ evidence on trafficking.
• The judge did not consider alternative causes for the PTSD diagnosis.
• The judge failed to assess the Respondent’s relationship with family members and their potential to provide support reducing risk from traffickers.
• The judge gave inadequate reasons for concluding that Vietnamese authorities could not provide sufficient protection or that internal relocation was not reasonable.
• The judge should have considered the Nguyen case, which suggested a sufficiency of protection and a low risk of re-encountering traffickers in Vietnam.

Respondent's Arguments

• The judge’s findings must be considered in context of previous findings that the Respondent was a VOT suffering from complex PTSD.
• The judge gave sustainable reasons, supported by expert medical and country evidence, for concluding Vietnamese authorities were unlikely to protect the Respondent.
• The Appellant never argued that the Respondent’s family could protect her from traffickers; evidence suggested family hostility.
• The Nguyen decision was fact-specific, not Country Guidance, and was not cited to the judge; it is not binding or directly comparable.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court accepted that the First-tier Tribunal judge was entitled to find the Respondent was a Victim of Trafficking and suffering from complex PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder. The judge gave significant weight to medical reports explaining that the Respondent’s cognitive impairment and memory issues accounted for inconsistencies in her account, undermining the Appellant’s suggestion that such inconsistencies indicated dishonesty.

The judge’s findings were supported by expert country evidence, including a report by Dr Mark Sidel, confirming extensive trafficking from the Respondent’s home province in Vietnam and the existence of debt bondage. The judge found the Respondent’s account consistent with objective evidence and concluded she was trafficked to the UK.

Regarding risk upon return, the judge relied on objective evidence showing victims of trafficking face re-victimisation and lack effective protection from Vietnamese police, with corrupt officials and underfunded shelters. The judge found the Respondent would be traceable by traffickers due to the national identification system and that internal relocation within Vietnam was not reasonable given these vulnerabilities and her mental health condition.

The court rejected the Appellant’s contention that the judge erred by failing to consider the Respondent’s family support, noting no evidence suggested family could protect her and the Refugee Convention envisages state, not family, protection. The judge’s failure to make findings on family support was held not to be material to the risk assessment.

The court also held that the judge’s failure to consider the Nguyen case was not an error of law, as Nguyen was fact-specific, not binding, and not cited to the tribunal. The judge was rationally entitled to rely on expert evidence before him.

The court found no error of law in the judge’s conclusion on the unreasonableness of internal relocation, supported by evidence of the national identification system, risks of tracing by traffickers, and the Respondent’s serious mental health condition.

Holding and Implications

The Secretary of State for the Home Department's appeal is dismissed.

The decision upholds the First-tier Tribunal judge’s findings that the Respondent was a Victim of Trafficking, suffered from complex PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder, and faces a real risk of harm or re-trafficking if returned to Vietnam. The court affirmed that the Vietnamese authorities cannot provide sufficient protection and that internal relocation is not reasonable. No new precedent was established; the decision primarily affects the parties by confirming the Respondent’s entitlement to protection and dismissal of the Appellant’s appeal.