Background
MB, an Albanian national, incurred gambling debts and responded to an advertisement offering work abroad. He was brought to the United Kingdom and forced to work at a cannabis farm. After police raided the property, he was convicted of producing cannabis and sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment. The Home Office later conclusively recognised him as a victim of modern slavery.
MB claimed asylum, alleging that his creditors and traffickers would kill or re-traffic him in Albania and that corrupt authorities could not protect him. The Secretary of State rejected and certified his protection and human-rights claims as clearly unfounded under section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, then deported him. The Upper Tribunal quashed the certification and subsequently ordered the Secretary of State to take the steps necessary to return him to the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal. It held that the Upper Tribunal had wrongly found that the Secretary of State applied the incorrect certification test, failed to consider certification separately, and inadequately addressed MB’s trafficking history. Read as a whole, the decision letter separately considered whether the claims were bound to fail and permissibly relied on the reasons given for rejecting them.
The Court held that MB’s protection claim was bound to fail. Although past trafficking can be relevant to future risk, it does not by itself establish an arguable lack of state protection or safe internal relocation. MB’s age, education, employment history, family contacts, and familiarity with Albania were protective factors. Nearly three years had passed since the trafficking, and there was no evidence beyond MB’s subjective assertions that the two men he feared would locate him, that Albanian authorities could not provide sufficient protection, or that internal relocation would be ineffective. His human-rights claim was likewise treated as hopeless. Because the certification was lawful, the Court did not determine the challenge to the Upper Tribunal’s return order.
Key Takeaways
- A section 94 claim is clearly unfounded when, on the evidence actually presented, a properly directed tribunal would inevitably dismiss it.
- Previous trafficking does not automatically prevent certification; the risk of re-trafficking, adequacy of state protection, and feasibility of internal relocation depend on the claimant’s individual circumstances.
- The Secretary of State must consider certification separately but may rely on reasons already given for substantively refusing the protection or human-rights claim.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies that recognition as a modern-slavery victim does not, without evidence of a continuing individualized risk, make an Albanian protection claim arguable. Courts assessing certification must examine the quality of the claim against both the claimant’s evidence and the objective country material, rather than treating past trafficking or a subjective fear as conclusive.
It also confirms that a refusal letter need not duplicate its substantive analysis in the certification section, provided the letter as a whole shows that the distinct “bound to fail” test was considered and applied.