|UNHCR Comments for the Parliament of the Republic of Albania on the Draft Law on Aliens|
Albania: Law No. 10/2021 on Asylum in the Republic of Albania
1 February 2021 | Publisher: National Legislative Bodies / National Authorities | Document type: National Legislation
|Campaign Update, July 2020 - September 2020|
Albania: LAW No. 113/2020 ON CITIZENSHIP
29 July 2020 | Publisher: National Legislative Bodies / National Authorities | Document type: National Legislation
|High-Level Segment on Statelessness: Results and Highlights|
DC (trafficking: protection/human rights appeals) Albania  UKUT 00351 (IAC)
In the light of the judgment of Flaux LJ in Secretary of State for the Home Department v MS (Pakistan)  EWCA Civ 594 and subsequent decisions of the Upper Tribunal and Administrative Court, a tribunal deciding a protection or human rights appeal, which concerns alleged trafficking within the scope of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings and decisions of the Competent Authority (CA) under the United Kingdom’s National Referral Mechanism, should proceed as follows: (a) In a protection appeal, the “reasonable grounds” or “conclusive grounds” decision of the CA will be part of the evidence that the tribunal will have to assess in reaching its decision on that appeal, giving the CA’s decision such weight as is due, bearing in mind that the standard of proof applied by the CA in a “conclusive grounds” decision was the balance of probabilities. (b) In a human rights appeal, a finding by the tribunal that the CA has failed to reach a rational decision on whether the appellant has been the victim of trafficking, such as to be eligible for leave to remain in the United Kingdom for that reason alone, may lead the tribunal to allow the human rights appeal, on the basis that removing the appellant at this stage would be a disproportionate interference with the appellant’s Article 8 ECHR rights. This scenario is, however, of narrow ambit and is unlikely to be much encountered in practice. (c) In a human rights appeal, the question whether the appellant has been the victim of trafficking may be relevant to the issue of whether the appellant’s removal would breach the ECHR, even where it is not asserted there is a trafficking-related risk of harm in the country of proposed return and irrespective of what is said in sub-paragraph (b) above: e.g. where the fact of trafficking may have caused the appellant physical or psychological harm. Here, as in sub-paragraph (a) above, the CA’s decision on past trafficking will be part of the evidence to be assessed by the tribunal.
13 November 2019 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Standard of proof - Trafficking in persons | Countries: Albania - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
|UNHCR Comments on the Draft Law on Asylum in the Republic of Albania|
|UNHCR Comments on the Draft Law on Citizenship in the Republic of Albania|
|UNHCR Submission on Albania: 33rd UPR Session|
BF (Tirana – gay men) Albania  UKUT 0093 (IAC)
Whether there is a sufficiency of protection from harm by the state for the appellant in his home area in Albania and if not whether there is protection available for him in Tirana or elsewhere. If it is, whether it is reasonably open to the appellant to relocate to Tirana (or elsewhere) in the light of his sexual orientation as a gay man.
26 March 2019 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Country of origin information (COI) - Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) | Countries: Albania - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland