Court of Appeal finds MB’s protection claim was bound to fail on the evidence
Albanian trafficking claim litigation has been considered by the Court of Appeal after the Secretary of State challenged an Upper Tribunal ruling concerning an Albanian man who had been trafficked to the UK and later deported.
In MB, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 1132, the Court of Appeal allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal. The judgment was handed down on 26 August 2026 by Lady Justice Whipple, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith and Lord Justice Peter Jackson.
MB, an Albanian national, had been trafficked to the UK and forced to work at a cannabis farm. Police raided the premises in December 2023, and MB was arrested. He was subsequently convicted of producing a Class B drug and sentenced to one year and four months’ imprisonment. The Secretary of State later recognised him as a victim of modern slavery.
After his release, MB made protection and human rights claims. The Secretary of State refused those claims on 6 November 2024 and certified them as clearly unfounded under section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The effect of certification was that MB had no right of appeal under section 82. He was subsequently deported to Albania.
The Upper Tribunal later found that the Secretary of State had not properly considered whether MB’s particular circumstances meant that he might not receive sufficient protection in Albania or be able to relocate there safely. On 3 February 2026, the tribunal ordered the Secretary of State to take all necessary steps to allow MB to return to the UK.
The Court of Appeal disagreed with that conclusion.
Lady Justice Whipple confirmed that the relevant certification test was whether the claim was “bound to fail”. If there is at least one legitimate view of the facts or law on which a claimant may succeed, the claim is not clearly unfounded. The assessment must focus on the quality of the claim, including the claimant’s evidence and the available objective evidence.
The court also found that the Secretary of State had asked the correct question, separately considered certification and was entitled to rely on reasons given when refusing the substantive protection claim. The decision letter had also expressly considered MB’s previous trafficking and the risk of re-trafficking.
For solicitors handling similar cases, the judgment underlines the importance of identifying specific evidence capable of showing that a claimant may fall outside the general level of state protection or cannot reasonably relocate internally. The court said the fact of previous trafficking alone was insufficient.
In MB’s case, the court noted that he had family in Albania, spoke the language, knew the country and had previous work experience. He had also been away from his traffickers for almost three years and had not encountered difficulties since returning to Albania.
The court found nothing beyond MB’s subjective assertions to demonstrate that his former associates would seek to locate him, that the Albanian state would be unable or unwilling to provide sufficient protection, or that internal relocation would not protect him.
Lady Justice Whipple concluded that a First-tier Tribunal judge faced with the protection claim would inevitably dismiss it. The court therefore held that the Secretary of State had succeeded on the first two grounds of appeal.
The third ground, concerning the order requiring steps to allow MB to return to the UK, did not need to be considered because the appeal was being allowed. The Court of Appeal stated that those issues were better left for a case where they were material.
Lord Justice Stuart-Smith and Lord Justice Peter Jackson agreed with the judgment.