Court of Appeal dismisses Albanian woman’s asylum claim

The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by an Albanian women in a protection claim where she initially succeeded in the First-tier Tribunal but that decision was later overturned by the Upper Tribunal. Her asylum claim was based on a risk on return from former clients of her husband’s business and the risk of gender based violence from her husband’s family.

The court did not accept that she was still at risk, despite her past experiences of persecution in Albania, which included sexual assault. The case is EI v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 556.

Background

The appellant is an Albanian national born into a Muslim family, from whom she became estranged after marrying a Christian man. They have two children, now aged 10 and 9. Around 2014 the appellant’s husband received threats made by ex-clients of his business relating to debts that he owed. In 2017 the family went to Italy, however the appellant returned to Albania after a few months.

After her return, the appellant was harassed on three occasions by former clients of her husband’s business and on the last occasion she was sexually assaulted by the men when she did not tell them where her husband was. The appellant did not want her husband to find out about the sexual assault and when he returned to Albania in December 2018, the appellant left for Italy with her two children on 14 December 2018.

She then flew to the UK on 2 February 2019 where she came to the attention of the UK Border Agency because she was using a false Italian passport. She claimed asylum. The appellant gave birth to a third child in 2020, the child has since been diagnosed with a neuroblastoma tumour which has required intensive medical treatment and will require further medical attention for the rest of his life.

The appeals

Her asylum claim was refused on 28 November 2019 and she appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. In addition to her fear of her husband’s previous business associates, the appellant said that she was at risk because her husband’s family would not support her because of the sexual assault. She also said that the fact she had given birth to a child from another man would also mean that she was at risk from her husband and his family. The appellant argued that there was no internal relocation option and that she would be stigmatised and discriminated against if returned, and that she and her children would face destitution.

On 26 August 2022 the First-tier Tribunal judge found the appellant to be credible and held that she was at risk of serious harm and that “her personal circumstances would inhibit her relocation”. Her appeal was allowed on asylum grounds.

The Home Secretary appealed and the Upper Tribunal set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision on 15 August 2023, saying that there had been an error as the tribunal had failed to properly engage with the issue of whether the appellant fell within the definition of a “particular social group” for the purpose of the Refugee Convention. The Upper Tribunal also held that there had not been adequate consideration of sufficiency of protection within Albania, including the possibility of internal relocation.

The Upper Tribunal retained the appeal and dismissed it on 4 December 2023. The finding of the First-tier Tribunal on the appellant’s credibility was maintained, but the Upper Tribunal concluded that the appellant was not a member of a particular social group and that she would not be at significant risk on return to Albania given the length of time that she had been away. The appellant had not been in contact with her husband or his family since she left and she had not received any threats from his business associates since then.

The Upper Tribunal also found that there were women’s shelters available in Albania if needed and that the appellant would, notwithstanding her childcare needs, be able to work and the family would not face destitution. The tribunal also concluded that healthcare would be available for the appellant’s youngest son. It was also held that internal relocation would not be unduly harsh and that there were no insurmountable obstacles to the appellant and her family’s return to Albania.

The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal who concluded that there was no error in the Upper Tribunal’s decision. The court declined to make a finding as to whether the appellant was part of a “particular social group” for the purpose of the Refugee Convention, given their finding that there was no risk on return, stating that “That issue is complicated and it would be better for it to be determined in a case where it would make a difference to the outcome.”

Conclusion

The appellant does seem to have been a little unlucky here, and I do wonder whether and to what extent her nationality played a role in the Home Office’s decision to appeal the First-tier Tribunal’s decision. Although it appears that the decision was appealed before Operation BRIDORA and the ministerial direction that no more than 2% of Albanian cases should succeed. In the meantime, there are three children involved in this case and the oldest two have now spent most of their lives in the UK, so the family may still have other options.

Interested in refugee law? You might like Colin's book, imaginatively called "Refugee Law" and published by Bristol University Press.

Communicating important legal concepts in an approachable way, this is an essential guide for students, lawyers and non-specialists alike.

Buy now