AZ v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Former victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation in Thailand may constitute a particular social group where their shared past experience is an immutable characteristic and gives them a distinct identity. A broad group of all women in Thailand was not established on the evidence.

Risk must be assessed individually. Material factors include age, relationship and domestic circumstances, family support, education, skills, employment prospects, psychological trauma, and the traffickers’ organisation and motive. Effective protection requires more than legislation: it must operate in practice to deter or prevent the feared harm. Internal relocation depends on whether relocation would be reasonable and not unduly harsh for the particular claimant.

The appellant, a Thai national, was accepted to have been trafficked to the United Kingdom and forced into prostitution. The Secretary of State nevertheless refused asylum and removal was proposed.

An Immigration Judge allowed the appeal on article 3 grounds but dismissed the Refugee Convention claim. On reconsideration, a Senior Immigration Judge found a material error of law and directed a fresh hearing. The present Tribunal reconsidered the appeal, including the risks of reprisals and re-trafficking, state protection, internal relocation, particular social group status, and the appellant’s psychological vulnerability.

1. The appeal was allowed on asylum and article 3 grounds. The appellant was a credible and particularly vulnerable former victim of trafficking. The Tribunal found that her trafficker acted within an organised operation and had links with Thai officials.

2. The proposed group of all women in Thailand was too broad on the evidence. However, young women who had been trafficked for sexual exploitation could form a particular social group. Their shared past experience was an immutable characteristic independent of the future persecution feared. The Tribunal applied Hoxha [2005] UKHL 19 and followed the approach in SB (PSG – Protection Regulations – Reg 6) Moldova CG [2008] UKAIT 0002.

3. Not every former trafficked woman would face serious harm on return. The assessment is fact-specific. The appellant’s lack of meaningful family support, limited education and work prospects, severe continuing trauma, likely stigma, and vulnerability to re-trafficking materially increased her risk. Her previous trafficking was a serious indication of future risk under paragraph 339K of the Immigration Rules.

4. Thailand had enacted anti-trafficking measures, but the evidence showed weak implementation, limited convictions, inadequate assistance, and corruption among relevant officials. Applying Bagdanavicius [2003] EWCA Civ 1605, the Tribunal held that the state could not provide this appellant with a reasonable level of effective protection.

5. Applying Januzi [2006] UKHL 5, relocation was not a reasonable or viable alternative. The appellant’s personal vulnerability, limited access to employment and support, and risk of trafficking throughout Thailand made relocation unduly harsh.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): On reconsideration, substituted a decision allowing the appeal on asylum and article 3 grounds.

• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: The original Immigration Judge allowed the appeal on article 3 grounds but dismissed it under the Refugee Convention. A Senior Immigration Judge subsequently found a material error of law and ordered a fresh reconsideration.