Denying Albanians protection: How labelling the country as ‘safe’ puts trafficking survivors at serious risk
Alana, an Albanian national, arrived in the UK with her boyfriend who promised her they would get married and live together. She had recently escaped an abusive forced marriage to a much older man, arranged by her family, who had then disowned her. She feared she would be punished if she returned to Albania.
Upon arrival in the UK, her ‘boyfriend’ raped and physically abused her and offered other men to rape her for money. He repeatedly threatened to kill her if she tried to leave. Alana was kept in the same building for two years and on two occasions fell pregnant and was forced to have unsafe abortions.
When she finally managed to escape, Helen Bamber Foundation took her on as a client and she received therapeutic support from us for her complex post-traumatic stress disorder. Alana fears returning to Albania because of her family’s threats and her ex-boyfriend's connections with the police.
Alana was referred into the National Referral Mechanism (NRM: the system for identifying and supporting victims of trafficking in the UK), and it was confirmed that she is a victim of trafficking. As a confirmed victim of trafficking, Alana was eligible to be considered for a grant of leave to remain in the UK. But she did not receive this status. Our legal team supported her in applying for asylum claim which was initially certified as ‘clearly unfounded’, leaving her without a right to appeal that decision. Alana’s legal representative challenged this. After reconsideration, Alana was recognised as a refugee and was granted refugee status for five years. Today, Alana lives and works in London and is applying to art schools to become an illustrator.
The importance of the asylum system
Despite thousands of survivors like Alana being identified and confirmed as victims of trafficking (through a positive ‘Conclusive Grounds’ decision) by the National Referral Mechanism, hardly any (fewer than 150 a year) obtain permission to stay in the UK via this system. Of those that do, most only get leave to remain for 12 months or less without any clear pathway to long-term stay, which is fundamental for their safety, recovery and integration. Therefore, non-British survivors of trafficking often rely on applying for asylum in the UK to obtain much-needed support such as housing and healthcare and a secure immigration status. Such victims of trafficking can be recognised as refugees if it is accepted that they are at risk if they return to their country. Those recognised as refugees are normally granted five years’ permission to stay, with a route to settlement.
Denying protection to Albanians
After coming to power in July 2024, the Labour government brought in many positive steps to clear a backlog of asylum claims created by the previous government. But at the same time, it was also reported that the Labour government intended to prioritise making decisions on the 30% of asylum seekers from countries the UK government considered “safe”, including Vietnam, Albania, Egypt and India.
Six months later, the government published the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which repealed much of the very problematic Illegal Migration Act 2023, but also deliberately retained section 59 of that Act. Section 59 of the IMA (though not in force yet) broadens the blanket exclusions on applications from people seeking asylum from European Economic Area (EEA) countries to include India, Georgia, and Albania. Asylum and human rights claim from nationals from those countries would only be considered in “exceptional circumstances”.
As a human rights charity, we are deeply concerned that these steps deny those who are seeking protection in the UK a fair and individualised assessment of their asylum claim. As a charity that specialises in supporting trafficking survivors, we have a particular understanding of the potential adverse impact of these actions on people like Alana, who would be at great risk of further exploitation if she had to return.
The previous government introduced a number of measures designed to ensure that no more than 2% of Albanian claims would be successful. We work with some of the most vulnerable survivors of trafficking in the UK and, while a small sample, our case work showed a drastic drop in grants of refugee status to our Albanian clients who had been formally recognised survivors of trafficking from 71% to 10%. This is not because it is now safe for them to return to Albanian – our clinical work shows that there is a significant risk that those forcibly sent back would be at great risk of further exploitation on return. Instead, these decisions have led to a significant increase in those waiting for appeal hearings, just adding to the growing tribunal backlog, increasing the costs of considering those individual claims and making it harder to reduce the use of asylum hotels.
It is clear that the presumption that a country of origin is ‘safe’ can result in evidence in asylum claims not being properly assessed. This can leave survivors of trafficking at risk of being returned to face further harm, in contravention of the UK’s obligations under the Refugee Convention and European Convention on Human Rights. What is needed are fair, humane, and effective systems that ensure all asylum claims are properly and fairly considered, so survivors like Alana can receive protection and rebuild their lives.