MB, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

A protection or human-rights claim may be certified as clearly unfounded under Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 only where it is bound to fail. The decision-maker must assess the quality of the actual claim, its supporting material, and relevant objective country evidence, while asking what a properly directed tribunal would do.

Past trafficking does not, without more, make a future risk of re-trafficking, inadequate state protection, or inability safely to relocate arguable. Those issues depend upon the claimant’s individual circumstances. Unsupported subjective fears will not displace strong objective material showing generally sufficient protection and reasonable internal relocation.

MB, an Albanian national recognised as a victim of modern slavery, was convicted of drug offences committed while working in a cannabis farm. Following his release from prison, the Secretary of State refused his protection and human-rights claims, certified them as clearly unfounded, and deported him to Albania.

The Upper Tribunal granted judicial review of the certification decision. It held that the Secretary of State had insufficiently considered MB’s past trafficking, his asserted risk of re-trafficking, the adequacy of state protection, and internal relocation. It later ordered the Secretary of State to take steps to enable his return to the United Kingdom.

The Secretary of State appealed. The central question was whether MB’s protection claim, assessed on the evidence actually advanced, was bound to fail for the purposes of certification.

Disposition

1. The appeal was allowed. The Upper Tribunal was wrong to hold that MB’s protection claim was not bound to fail. The Court did not determine the challenge to the return order, as that issue arose only if the certification decision stood.

2. The applicable certification test under section 94(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 was whether the claim was bound to fail. The inquiry concerns the quality of the claim actually made, including its factual detail, supporting evidence and objective country material. It requires an assessment of the conclusion a properly directed First-tier Tribunal would inevitably reach. A refusal decision and a certification decision remain separate exercises, but the Secretary of State may rely on reasons given for refusing the underlying claim.

3. The Secretary of State had asked the correct question and had separately considered certification. Her decision letter expressly addressed MB’s previous trafficking and the risk of re-trafficking. The Upper Tribunal had therefore erred in finding otherwise.

4. Past trafficking was not, by itself, capable of establishing an arguable future insufficiency of protection or inability to relocate. The risk of re-trafficking depends on individual circumstances. MB had been separated from his traffickers for nearly three years, had no evidence of continuing contact or threats, and had personal characteristics generally favourable to reintegration. His claim that the traffickers had sufficient influence or reach to defeat state protection or internal relocation was no more than subjective assertion.

5. Applying the practical standard for state protection and the individualised test for internal relocation, the Court held that no tribunal could realistically allow the protection claim. Strong objective country evidence and authority contradicted MB’s unsupported fears. His protection claim was therefore bound to fail, and the certification was lawful.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal and held that the certification of MB’s claims as clearly unfounded was lawful.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): On 18 December 2025, granted judicial review of the certification decision. On 3 February 2026, ordered the Secretary of State to take all necessary steps to permit MB’s return to the United Kingdom.