An asylum seeker could be allowed to stay in the UK after a judge’s ruling against the ‘purely fictitious’ claim he was trafficked from Albania was overturned.
The 24-year-old asylum seeker sought refuge in the UK after claiming he was a victim of drug trafficking and at risk of attack from the family of a woman who had an affair with his father.
Last year, first tier Tribunal judge Jean-Gilles Raymond dismissed his asylum claim, accusing him of making up that he was a victim of trafficking.
But now, the Upper Tier Tribunal, has said the man can have his case reheard – meaning he may be allowed to stay in Britain.
The asylum seeker – who has been granted anonymity – arrived in the UK seven years ago when he was 17-years-old.
He said he was forced to flee Albania after being attacked by family members of a woman with whom his father was having an affair.
In 2018 the man – who has PTSD and Mixed personality disorder – claimed asylum in Britain as an unaccompanied minor, but this was rejected.
Two years later he was referred to the Government as a potential victim of trafficking and in 2020 he was granted one year of Discretionary Leave.
This was after he borrowed money to pay for his grandfather to have an operation and was forced to work in a cannabis factory in Britain.
In 2023 the Home Secretary rejected his human rights claim stating he would not ‘face a risk of re-trafficking or persecution in Albania’.
The Government argued that protection is available to him and he has the option of internal relocation, if required.
But the asylum seeker appealed, stating he ‘fears’ he will be attacked by both the woman’s family and those involved in trafficking him, if he returns to Albania.
In November last year the First Tier Tribunal Judge Raymond heard and then dismissed his case.
But now his case is being reheard after Upper Tribunal Judge Rebecca Owens and Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Sara Anzani said it was ‘irrational’ for the First Tier Tribunal judge to accuse the asylum seeker of lying.
They said: ‘We are satisfied that the judge erred in concluding that the [man’s] trafficking claim was purely fictitious, despite the positive conclusive grounds decision stating otherwise.
‘[His] credibility was not challenged in the refusal letter, nor was it raised as an issue at any stage before or during the First-tier Tribunal hearing.”
‘The [man] reasonably prepared his appeal on the basis that his victim of trafficking status was not in dispute, particularly given that the [Home Office] had previously granted him discretionary leave on that very basis.
‘In our view, given that this element of the [man’s] account had been accepted as truthful, it was irrational for the judge to reject it as fictitious without at least raising concerns with the parties during the hearing.”
‘This fundamental error undermines the decision as a whole.’