AM & Anor The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Former victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation in Albania may constitute a particular social group. That status alone does not establish refugee status. Risk from former traffickers, family members, or new traffickers, the adequacy of state protection, and the reasonableness of internal relocation must be assessed by reference to the woman’s individual circumstances.

Relevant matters include family status and resources, education, mental health, age, area of origin, and the presence of an illegitimate child. Severe trauma may make internal relocation unduly harsh and may be material to Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Albania generally offers protection and reintegration assistance, but corruption, family honour norms, and the claimant’s particular vulnerability may make that protection insufficient.

AM and BM were Albanian women whose asylum claims were based on accepted experiences of abduction or deception, sexual violence, forced prostitution and trafficking. Each had a young child born outside marriage. Their appeals had initially been dismissed, but material errors of law were found on reconsideration.

The Upper Tribunal conducted second-stage reconsiderations and gave country guidance on the risks faced by trafficked women returned to Albania. It considered whether the appellants would face persecution or Article 3 ill-treatment from former traffickers or their families, whether Albania provided sufficient protection, whether internal relocation was reasonable, and whether removal would breach Article 8.

1. Both appeals were allowed on asylum and human-rights grounds. The previous determinations were set aside.

2. Women trafficked for sexual exploitation in Albania share the immutable common background of having been trafficked. They may be perceived by wider society as distinct, particularly where return procedures or residence in a shelter reveal their history. They may therefore constitute a particular social group. The decisive further question is whether the individual faces a real risk of persecution for that reason.

3. There is no general risk of trafficking for Albanian women, and general discrimination against women regarded as sexually dishonoured does not itself normally reach the Article 3 threshold. Nevertheless, a trafficked woman may face persecution from her former traffickers or family. The inquiry is fact-specific. A rural northern background, an illegitimate child, family honour, prior violence, the trafficker’s ability and incentive to trace her, and her mental health may all be decisive.

4. Albania has laws, shelters, reintegration programmes and prosecutions which generally meet the sufficiency-of-protection standard in relation to new traffickers. That conclusion cannot safely be applied without qualification where the risk is from a former trafficker or family member. Corruption, weak witness protection and deference to family and purported husbands may leave a particular woman without effective protection.

5. Internal relocation is not resolved by conditions in Tirana in the abstract. The Tribunal must assess whether relocation is reasonable or unduly harsh for the particular victim. Profound trafficking-related trauma can impede access to a shelter, work and rehabilitation. A small child and lack of family support can compound that vulnerability.

6. AM and BM faced a real risk of persecution in their home areas from former traffickers and, in AM’s case, from family separation from her child. Internal relocation was unduly harsh because of their severe psychological conditions, isolation and vulnerability. Their genuine suicidal ideation also created a real Article 3 risk on enforced return. Removal would additionally be a disproportionate interference with their private and family lives under Article 8.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): On second-stage reconsideration, set aside the earlier decisions and allowed both appeals on asylum and human-rights grounds.
• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: Material errors of law were found in the earlier dismissed appeals. In AM’s case the reconsideration decision identified an inadequate treatment of the country guidance and particular social group issues. In BM’s case it required investigation of later evidence concerning re-trafficking.
• Immigration Judges: Each appellant’s appeal against refusal of asylum or further leave had initially been dismissed.