ET (Albania) v the Secretary of State for the Home Department

In an immigration permission application, serious consequences on return do not by themselves establish a compelling reason to appeal where the proposed grounds have no real prospect of success. A tribunal may refuse an adjournment for further medical evidence when the material before it gives no sufficient indication that the evidence would be significant. Later medical evidence does not necessarily demonstrate unfairness, especially where it assumes the factual account rejected by the tribunal and would not materially alter its credibility assessment. Credibility findings must be supported by specific reasons, but an appellate court assesses the cumulative reasoning; criticism of some passages does not require permission where the overall reasoning remains adequate. Country guidance on risks faced by trafficked women on return does not necessarily govern the credibility of an individual trafficking claim.

The applicant, an Albanian woman with young children, alleged that she had been trafficked into Albania and escaped to the United Kingdom. She relied on PTSD and contended that return would substantially prejudice her and her children. The First-tier Tribunal refused an adjournment sought to obtain further medical evidence and rejected her account on credibility grounds. The Upper Tribunal refused permission to appeal in a brief determination dated 18 August 2014. In the Court of Appeal, the application for permission challenged both the refusal to adjourn and the credibility reasoning. It was accepted that no important point of practice or principle arose. The issue was whether the merits, combined with the consequences of return, supplied a compelling reason for permission.

Application refused.

1. Permission threshold. Since the application raised no important point of practice or principle, the applicant had to show that the merits, together with the consequences of return, created a compelling reason for permission. The grounds did not have a real prospect of success.
2. Adjournment and medical evidence. The fairness of refusing an adjournment was assessed on the material before the First-tier Tribunal. The short medical letter did not indicate that further evidence was likely to be significant. The later report, although impressive, assumed the truth of the applicant’s account of trafficking. Since the First-tier Tribunal rejected that account and decided the case principally on credibility, it was not apparent that the report would have affected the determination. The Upper Tribunal therefore had not erred in declining to interfere.
3. Credibility findings. Credibility findings must be supported by specific reasons and are difficult to challenge on appeal because they involve both analysis of the account and, where relied upon, the manner in which evidence is given. Here, the First-tier Tribunal relied on the content of the account rather than the applicant’s manner of giving evidence. Although some passages could properly be criticised, the cumulative reasons were sufficient. The fact that some aspects of the account were not inconsistent with trafficking did not establish an arguable error requiring permission.
4. Country guidance. The Country Guidance case of A & B and Trafficked Women (Albania) was principally concerned with the dangers faced by trafficked women on return and conditions in Albania. Most of it did not bear on whether a claimant’s account of trafficking was credible. The absence of a specific reference to that case therefore did not materially undermine the First-tier Tribunal’s credibility assessment. In agreement with Briggs LJ, the judge concluded that there was no compelling reason to grant permission. Order: application refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — On 1 July 2015, Sir Stanley Burnton refused the application for permission to appeal.
• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) — Refused permission to appeal in a determination dated 18 August 2014.
• First-tier Tribunal — Refused an adjournment to obtain further medical evidence and rejected the applicant’s account on credibility grounds.