EI v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Hanbury) dated 4 December 2023, concerning the refusal of asylum and related protection claims by the Appellant, a citizen of Albania born in 1987. The Appellant, born into a Muslim family, moved to Italy around 2005, studied law but did not complete her studies, and later married a Christian man in 2011, living with his family in Kukes, Albania. Following business difficulties faced by her husband and his family, and threats from ex-clients, the Appellant relocated with her family several times, including a period back in Italy. After a series of violent incidents in Albania, including a sexual assault, she left Albania in December 2018 with her children using false documents and arrived in the UK in February 2019, where she claimed asylum.

The Secretary of State refused her asylum claim in November 2019, concluding she did not meet the criteria for asylum, humanitarian protection, or leave to remain. The Appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT), which allowed her appeal on asylum grounds in August 2022, accepting her evidence and expert reports indicating risk of serious harm and difficulties with internal relocation.

The Secretary of State appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT), which set aside the FTT decision in August 2023 due to legal errors regarding the assessment of membership in a Particular Social Group (PSG) and adequacy of state protection and internal relocation. The UT remade the decision after an adjourned hearing in October 2023, ultimately dismissing the appeal and rejecting the Appellant's claims.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Appellant was at real risk of serious harm if returned to Albania;
2. Whether the Appellant qualified as a member of a Particular Social Group for asylum purposes;
3. Whether there was sufficiency of state protection available to the Appellant in Albania;
4. Whether internal relocation within Albania was a reasonable and viable alternative for the Appellant;
5. Whether the Appellant was entitled to humanitarian protection;
6. Whether removal of the Appellant would breach her rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) based on private life considerations.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant claimed membership of a Particular Social Group defined by risks from her husband's ex-clients and the husband's family due to unpaid debts, shame from sexual assault, and the birth of a child outside marriage.
• She argued that the Albanian authorities were unable or unwilling to protect her, citing past failures to provide adequate protection.
• The Appellant contended that internal relocation was not feasible because she could be traced via registration and medical treatment obligations, especially given her third child’s serious health condition.
• She submitted that the passage of time did not diminish the risk of harm and that the UT erred in underestimating the seriousness of past incidents and ongoing threats.
• The Appellant argued that removal to Albania would breach her Article 8 rights due to very significant obstacles to integration, including economic hardship and lack of medical care for her child.

Secretary of State's Arguments

• The Secretary of State maintained that the UT properly assessed the risk of harm on return, concluding there was no real risk of serious harm given the passage of time and lack of recent threats.
• It was argued that Albania generally provides sufficient state protection, and the Appellant’s past police complaints did not demonstrate ongoing inadequacy of protection.
• The Secretary of State contended that internal relocation to Tirana was a reasonable alternative, given the city’s size, available shelters, and lack of evidence that the Appellant’s husband or his family were present there.
• Regarding Article 8, the Secretary of State accepted a minor error in the test applied but submitted it was immaterial as the correct factors were considered and the removal was proportionate and lawful.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court undertook a structured analysis beginning with the assessment of risk on return. It distinguished between findings of fact and evaluative judgments, holding that the UT was entitled to reassess the risk despite the FTT’s earlier findings because risk assessment involves mixed law and fact. The court found no legal error in the UT’s conclusion that the Appellant did not face a real risk of serious harm, noting the passage of time, absence of recent threats, and lack of evidence of domestic abuse or family violence.

Regarding state protection, the court acknowledged the Appellant’s past difficulties with the police but accepted the UT’s view that these were not indicative of future protection availability, especially given Albania’s general sufficiency of state protection as established in precedent.

On internal relocation, the court agreed with the UT that Tirana presented a reasonable alternative, considering its size, available shelters, and the Appellant’s capacity to earn a living. The court found the UT’s reasoning rational and proportionate, rejecting arguments that relocation there would be unduly harsh.

The court declined to decide the complex question of the Appellant’s membership of a Particular Social Group because the outcome did not depend on it, given the absence of risk and sufficiency of protection.

In relation to humanitarian protection, the court found no error in the UT’s decision not to grant it, as the foundational risk threshold was not met.

On Article 8 ECHR grounds, the court acknowledged a minor error in the UT’s formulation of the test but held it was immaterial to the outcome. The UT had properly considered all relevant factors and reasonably concluded that removal was necessary and proportionate, with no insurmountable obstacles to integration in Albania.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is DISMISSED.

The court upheld the Upper Tribunal’s decision that the Appellant does not face a real risk of serious harm if returned to Albania, that adequate state protection is available, and that internal relocation is a reasonable alternative. The Appellant’s claims for asylum, humanitarian protection, and Article 8 ECHR private life protection were all rejected. The decision results in the Appellant’s removal being lawful and proportionate. No new legal precedent was established as the court applied existing principles and case law to the facts.