The home secretary is facing another battle in the courts after an illegal immigrant won the right to challenge a decision to send him back to his safe home country.
The 27-year-old Albanian—whose identity is protected—claimed asylum on the basis he was in fear for his life over a Balkans blood feud.
The man—referred to in court as “H”—arrived in the UK in January after being smuggled into the country via a lorry.
His claim was immediately dismissed on the basis that Albania is on the Home Office’s list of safe countries.
Anyone travelling from a safe country to claim asylum in the UK will automatically have their application rejected, with new rules under the Nationality and Borders Act preventing any appeal of the decision.
Uncle Murdered
The court was told how the claimant arrived in Britain on Jan. 11 hidden in a lorry.
He officially claimed asylum on Jan. 24, stating that he has a “well-founded fear of persecution” if returned to Albania as a result of a blood feud.
He told the Home Office he fled Albania to avoid a blood feud dating back to the murder of his maternal uncle in 1997 by a distant cousin named in court as “X.”
When X subsequently died, the court heard, one of the claimant’s uncles was accused of murdering him as an act of revenge.
The 27-year-old claimed he was then attacked by X’s nephews in early 2022 and that he fled the country when the police failed to help him.
Additionally, he fears money lenders from whom he had borrowed £15,000 to fund his journey to the UK.
His claims were rejected by the Home Office in April, with an order for the man to be immediately deported.
After submitting a second application, his claim was again dismissed, and plans to remove him were postponed.
In May, the man launched legal proceedings challenging the decision, culminating in his case being brought to the High Court on Nov. 3.
Lawyers on behalf of the man said the Home Office failed to consider previous guidance from the Upper Tribunal immigration court on Albanian blood feuds, made in a 2012 case.
While counsel for the Home Office stated there was “nothing to suggest that any of the Claimant’s family members had been killed or that his father or brother had been targeted OR that the Claimant had not demonstrated that X’s family was powerful or had influence over state agents or the ability to locate the Claimant throughout Albania.”
The Home Office said in its conclusion to the Albanian national that, “It is considered that any subjective fear that you may retain is not objectively well founded because there is sufficient protection available by the Albanian authorities given the circumstances you describe.”
Police Protection
The home secretary also rejected claims his life would be in danger over a money debt.The Albanian said that he feared a money lender—referred to as “Bami” in court—could harm him or his family.
However, the Home Office argued that to date, there was no demonstration that Bami or his gang had “any active interest or motivation in pursuing the claimant or his family.”
The Home Office lawyer said that it was concluded that the 27-year-old could return to Albania and “relocate to avoid problems.”
It had not been demonstrated that he was unable to seek protection from the police or that the people he feared had police or political connections or means to restrict him from seeking protection, the Home Office said.
However, the court referred to the previous country guidance given in a previous Upper Tier tribunal on the issue of blood feuds.
The case—EH (blood feuds) Albania CG [2012] UKUT 00348 (IAC)—stated that: “The Albanian state has taken steps to improve state protection, but in areas where Kanun law predominates (particularly in northern Albania) those steps do not yet provide sufficiency of protection from Kanun-related blood-taking if an active feud exists and affects the individual claimant … Where there is an active feud affecting an individual and self-confinement is the only option, that person will normally qualify for Refugee status.”
The High Court pointed out that if the claimant had not been deprived of his right to appeal to the First Tier tribunal, the tribunal would have been bound to follow the EH case because of its country guidance status, unless the home secretary had persuaded it that departure from that guidance was justified.
The court said that it is important that Home Office decisionmakers bear in mind the significance of country guidance cases when making safe country asylum decisions.
Judges said it was arguable that the home secretary’s decision did not allow for the prospect of a First Tier Tribunal judge applying EH and coming to a different view than on sufficiency of protection.
The case will now be listed for judicial review.
