Avdi Alija v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: HU/00523/2022

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Newport On 29th September 2026 Before FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BOYES Between

AVDI ALIJA and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT Appellant Respondent Representation: For the Appellant: For the Respondent: E Turnbull of Counsel J Lewis, Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS 1. This is the decision of the Tribunal in the appeal of the Appellant against the decision of the Respondent made on 4th March 2022. Background 2.

3. This is a case with a very lengthy history and one which relates to a decision taken by the Secretary of State over four and half years ago. The case was first heard in the First Tier Tribunal on 31st March 2025 which even by then was 3 years after the decision was made to refuse the appellant’s Human Rights claim and maintain the Deportation order. That decision was appealed and the matter came before the Upper Tribunal on 17 th April 2026 in which the Home Office accepted that the then Judge had made errors such that the decision could not be maintained. The Upper Tribunal remitted (sent © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2026 Appeal number: HU/00523/2022 back) the case to the First Tier Tribunal to be heard again and the matter came before this court on 29th September 2026. The appellant had, by the time of the hearing before me, been released from Prison and was on licence.

4. The only aspect which was preserved from the first attempt at hearing the case was the fact that the appellant had been convicted of a serious crime and as a consequence he was a danger to the community. That finding was still in place at the time of the hearing before me. The consequences of that finding were that the appellant was excluded from the protections of the Geneva Convention and was excluded from claiming or establishing that he needed Humanitarian Protection.

5. What it does not do is prevent the appellant advancing the very same factual matrix and arguments but under the guise of Article 2 and 3 ECHR. 6.

7. The Offending and Criminal Convictions The appellant has an extensive and lengthy criminal record. The convictions recorded against him are lengthy but it is important to see them in full then the reader can appreciate the backdrop and landscape to the offending which triggered the deportation order and which subsequently led to a finding that the appellant was a danger to the community 8. On 30 September 2004 at Camberwell Youth Court, he was convicted of two counts of driving whilst disqualified, two counts of no insurance, and no test certificate, for which he was given a community rehabilitation order for two years, a community punishment order of 100 hours, a curfew order for three months with electronic tagging, six penalty points on his driving licence, and disqualification from driving for 12 months.

9. On 20 January 2005 at Camberwell Green Magistrates Court, he was convicted of possession of cannabis resin, a Class C controlled drug, and possession of cocaine, a Class A controlled drug, for which he was given a community rehabilitation order for 12 months and a community punishment order of 100 hours.

10. On 20 January 2005 at Camberwell Green Juvenile Court, he was convicted of breach of a community rehabilitation order, for which the order was revoked.

11. On 27 February 2006 at Greenwich Magistrates Court, he was convicted of breach of a community rehabilitation order, for which the order was revoked.

12. On 23 August 2006 at Greenwich Magistrates Court, he was convicted of possession of cocaine, a Class A controlled drug, and possession of cannabis, a Class C controlled drug, for which he was given a community order, an unpaid work requirement of 150 hours, and forfeiture, confiscation, and destruction of the drugs.

13. On 15 September 2006 at Greenwich Magistrates Court, he was convicted of driving a mechanically propelled vehicle whilst unfit through drink or drugs, using a vehicle while uninsured, and driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence, for which he was ordered to pay a total fine of £350, costs of £50, had his driving licence endorsed, and was disqualified from driving for 18 months.

14. On 13 December 2006 at Medway Magistrates Court, he was convicted of using a vehicle while uninsured and driving whilst disqualified, for which he was sentenced to Appeal number: HU/00523/2022 90 days' imprisonment in a young offenders institution, disqualified from driving for 18 months, and had his driving licence endorsed.

15. On 19 October 2007 at Camberwell Green Magistrates Court, he was convicted of possession of cannabis, a Class C controlled drug, failing to surrender to custody at the appointed time, and failing to surrender to custody as soon as practicable thereafter, for which he was given 12 hours at an attendance centre and forfeiture of the cannabis.

16. On 4 September 2008 at Enfield Magistrates Court, he was convicted of burglary of a dwelling with intent to steal, for which he was sentenced to 10 weeks' imprisonment.

17. On 29 January 2009 at Greenwich Magistrates Court, he was convicted of possession of MDMA, a Class A controlled drug, and possession of cocaine, a Class A controlled drug, for which he was given six weeks' imprisonment suspended for 12 months, a supervision order, an unpaid work requirement of 80 hours, and ordered to pay costs of £60.

18. On 27 May 2010 at Greenwich Magistrates Court, he was convicted of failing to comply with the requirements of a community order, for which the order was revoked.

19. On 7 June 2010 at Greenwich Magistrates Court, he was convicted of driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence and using a vehicle while uninsured, for which he was given one day's detention in a courthouse, had his driving licence endorsed, and was disqualified from driving for six months.

20. On 16 September 2010 at Tower Bridge Magistrates Court, he was convicted of possession of cannabis, a Class B controlled drug, and failing to comply with the community requirements of a suspended sentence order, for which he was ordered to pay a fine of £80, costs of £100, forfeiture and destruction of the cannabis, and an unpaid work requirement of 10 consecutive hours.

21. On 21 January 2011 at Greenwich Magistrates Court, he was convicted of possession of cannabis, a Class B controlled drug, and commission of a further offence during the operational period of a suspended sentence order, for which he was sentenced to 21 days' imprisonment and forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

22. On 28 October 2011 at Camberwell Green Magistrates Court, he was convicted of going equipped for theft and theft of a bicycle, for which he was sentenced to 28 days' imprisonment.

23. On 10 January 2012 at South East London Magistrates Court, he was convicted of failing to comply with the requirements of a community order, for which the order was continued with an unpaid work requirement of 21 consecutive hours.

24. On 11 June 2012 at South East London Magistrates Court, he was convicted of using a vehicle while uninsured and failing to comply with the requirements of a community order, for which his driving licence was endorsed, he was disqualified from driving for 12 months, and the order was revoked.

25. On 15 October 2012 at South East London Juvenile Court, he was convicted of possession of cannabis, a Class B controlled drug, for which he was ordered to pay a Appeal number: HU/00523/2022 fine of £100, costs of £85, a victim surcharge of £15, and forfeiture and destruction of the drug.

26. On 2 August 2013 at South London Magistrates Court, he was convicted of possession of cannabis, a Class B controlled drug, for which he was ordered to pay a fine of £170, costs of £85, a victim surcharge of £20, and forfeiture and destruction of the drug.

27. On 27 November 2013 at South East London Magistrates Court, he was convicted of possession of cannabis, a Class B controlled drug, and possession of cocaine, a Class A controlled drug, for which he was ordered to pay a total fine of £170, costs of £85, a victim surcharge of £20, and forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

28. On 22 September 2014 at South East London Magistrates Court, he was convicted of possession of cannabis, a Class B controlled drug, and using a vehicle while uninsured, for which he was ordered to pay a total fine of £200, costs of £85, a victim surcharge of £20, forfeiture and destruction of the drug, and was disqualified from driving for four months.

29. On 18 May 2015 at South East London Magistrates Court, he was convicted of failing to surrender to custody at the appointed time, two counts of possession of cannabis, a Class B controlled drug, and using a vehicle while uninsured, for which he was ordered to pay a total fine of £500, costs of £85, a total victim surcharge of £40, a criminal courts charge of £180, forfeiture and destruction of the drugs, and was disqualified from driving for 12 months.

30. On 3 June 2016 at South East London Magistrates Court, he was convicted of possession of cannabis, a Class B controlled drug, for which he was ordered to pay a fine of £150, costs of £42.50, a victim surcharge of £30, and forfeiture and destruction of the drug.

31. On 16 December 2016 at South East London Magistrates Court, he was convicted of possession of cocaine, a Class A controlled drug, and possession of cannabis, a Class B controlled drug, for which he was ordered to pay a total fine of £200, costs of £85, victim surcharge of £30, and forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

32. On 24 August 2018 at Woolwich Crown Court, he was convicted of false imprisonment and wounding/inflicting grievous bodily harm, for which he was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.

33. The facts of the Offending 34. At approximately 1.50am on 17 February 2018, police received six separate calls from independent members of the public reporting a serious incident. The callers variously described a fight, an assault on a male, or a male being forced into a vehicle. One eyewitness stated that the victim was forcibly placed into a grey Vauxhall Astra by several individuals and observed one of those involved carrying a large knife.

35. CCTV footage from Gransden House, Bowditch, SE8, showed the victim, Mr C C, being physically manhandled into Flat 44. The footage also showed Mr Alija assisting in the incident by opening the door to permit the group entry. CCTV further recorded Mr Alija repeatedly entering and leaving the flat over the following four and a half hours while the victim remained inside. Appeal number: HU/00523/2022 36. During this period, Mr C C was unlawfully detained and assaulted. Those involved demanded £50,000 for his release. He was compelled to provide his home address and details of his wife, including her telephone number. His wife, Mrs T, received a number of telephone calls while her husband was being detained, although she did not answer them. The victim stated that he was tied up and forced to remain seated on a chair within the small bedsit. He described all four men involved as remaining inside the property during his detention.

37. At approximately 6.47am, the victim managed to escape. While inside a small bathroom, he kicked through a double-glazed window and climbed onto the external balcony or landing serving the flats. He then jumped from the second-floor balcony, crossed the central courtyard, climbed over a high spiked fence and made his way onto the road.

38. CCTV showed that Mr Alija had left the property at approximately 6.33am and returned at 6.49am. The flat appeared to be locked because, upon Mr Alija opening the door, two other males immediately exited and crossed the courtyard via the stairwell. By approximately 6.51am, the victim had reached a nearby petrol station on a main road, where assistance was sought and police were called.

39. When officers arrived, communication was initially hindered by language difficulties. The victim had sustained significant cuts to both sides of his body, his neck, hands and arms, leading officers initially to believe that he had been stabbed. He was transported to King's College Hospital, where, with the assistance of a telephone interpreter, he reported that he had been kidnapped and held against his will. He subsequently provided a detailed account of his movements, using Google Maps to identify the route taken during his escape, and directed police to Gransden House as the location where he had been detained.

40. The Learned Judge’s Sentencing remarks 41. 42. “Alija, you are 31 years old. Today is Friday, 24 August 2018. Earlier today, you were found guilty by a jury by unanimous verdicts on an indictment containing two counts. Count one had alleged against you on 17 February 2018, falsely imprisoning a man called Mr C against his will. In count 20 was an unlawful wounding charge against that man on the same day, to take account of injuries that he sustained when he got out of an address by smashing a glass window and, effectively, scramble off, or down, a balcony and got out of the address……. I make it plain that I am satisfied in this case that the actions of you, Mr Alija, by opening the door, by, in effect, permitting your house to be used, by going to a cupboard, providing a T-shirt and handling it over in order for Mr C’s legs to be bound and you leaving the address on multiple occasions and locking the door, are acts of personal participations by you and not simply by way of assistance.

43. Next, I want to deal with what I see as the aggravating features in this case. The aggravating features are: 44.

1) It was a group activity. 45.

2) There was repeated beating of Mr Foo. 46.

3) He was tied up. Appeal number: HU/00523/2022 47.

4) There were significant injuries. 48.

5) This was a terrifying incident with an ongoing effect, and let me cover that by reminding the evidence. As to the effect on him, he described that he had been in hospital for three weeks, that he had had to have two operations on his ear because he had had fluid coming out of his ear, an operation on his left shoulder and two operations on his hand. 49.

6) The false imprisonment was prolonged and sustained; it lasted for more than four hours. 50.

7) You were present when demands for money were made and when demands for a pin number for your phone were made. I will return to that in a moment. 51.

8) There were threats of an extreme kind because Mr Foo was threatened that he was going to be stabbed with a knife that had been taken from the kitchen, and he was threatened that he would be burnt with boiling water from a kettle. 52.

9) The ninth aggravating feature is I have to take your previous convictions into account. Now you have, prior to these convictions, you had 25 convictions for 48 offences. It is correct to say that most of the matters were driving matters, the possession of cocaine and other controlled drugs; there was a burglary in 2008 where you were given 10 weeks imprisonment, other drug related offences, there were offences of going equipped and theft of a cycle in 2011…….

53. There was a demand for money in this case, there were repeated demands for money, and the threats were linked with the demand for money… 54. The team had to work together. There were obviously going to be three men who bundled Mr C into the care. There was then going to be somebody else who took his phone away, such that it was in a general location and might be used to go to his house, for instance, that is why he is being asked for his PIN number, his address, his postcode and other details.

55. There also had to be, obviously, somewhere where the false imprisonment was going to take place and that was in the flat owned and controlled by the defendant, Mr Alija… The Hearing 56. The hearing took place face to face. It was recorded using the Cloud Video Platform. That recording is the record of proceedings and should be consulted in the event of any dispute about what was said at the hearing. Issues 57. The parties agreed that the issues the Tribunal must decide are: 58. (1) Whether he is stateless or Kosovan; 59. (2) Whether he faces a real risk of persecution or Article 2/3/4 ECHR harm in Kosovo; 60. (3) Whether he poses a danger to the community; Appeal number: HU/00523/2022 61. 62. (4) Whether there are very compelling reasons which render his deportation disproportionate under Article 8 ECHR; (5) Whether, alternatively, it is disproportionate to refuse him leave to remain in circumstances where he cannot be removed.

63. Exception 1: Has the appellant lived lawfully in the UK for more than half his life?

64. Is the appellant socially and culturally integrated?

65. Does the appellant face very significant obstacles to integration in his country of return?

66. Exception 2: Does the appellant have a genuine and subsisting relationship with a qualifying partner or qualifying child?

67. Would it be unduly harsh on the partner / child / children if the appellant were deported?

68. Are there very compelling circumstances over and above those described in Exceptions 1 and 2, such as to outweigh the public interest in the appellant’s deportation? Evidence 69. A was born in Gjakova, then in the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia, in 1987, to Roma gypsy parents (A 2022, AB/5; SEF 2002 RB/7-8). As gypsies, he and his parents “were never treated well” and so his parents spied for the Serbs (RFR 2002 RB/14). This reflects a broader trend in which Roma sided with the Serbs during Kosovo’s War of Independence (Vebi Kosumi §23, AB/126). A did not go to school (Jodi Symmonds §5.2.1 AB/18). Again, this was “often” the case for Roma children in Kosovo (Vebi Kosumi §27 AB/119).

70. In 1996, the Kosovan Liberation Army launched a war for independence, and Serbian forces responded with “severely oppressive measures”. The Serbs massacred Albanian civilians, and NATO intervened to secure Kosovan liberation. NATO administered Kosovo from 1999 until the declaration of an independent state in 2008 (Vebi Kosumi §5-8 AB/112-113). Following Serbians’ withdrawal in 1999, ethnic Albanians returned to Kosovo and there followed a wave of reprisals against perceived collaborators, particularly Roma. There were reports of violence and arson against their communities, many Roma homes were destroyed, entire neighbourhoods were razed, and thousands of Roma were displaced. Many fled to Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia (Vebi Kosumi §23 AB/118-119). At this time, A’s family home was set on fire and both his parents were killed. The other Roma were leaving Kosovo, and A went with them to Macedonia (RFR 2002, RB/14). According to the Council of Europe’s Factsheet on Roma History, hundreds of thousands of Roma and Albanians emigrated as a result of the Kosovan conflict in 1998, and when the Albanians returned in 1999, “big parts of the Albanian population and Albanian extremists turned against the Roma.” Up to 14,000 of 19,000 Roma homes and 75 Roma settlements were completely destroyed, and up to 80% of the Roma, Egyptian and Ashkalije are estimated to have fled, mostly to

neighbouring countries (Page 7). Appeal number: HU/00523/2022 71. When A arrived in Macedonia, his party continued travelling and he stopped to rest. He was approached by a Macedonian man who offered to take him in and put him in school (RFR 2002 RB/14). A agreed, but the man and his family forced A to work long hours on his farm, did not put him in school, and used to beat him, threaten him, withhold food, subject him to poor living conditions and not pay him. A endured this for three years (RFR 2002 RB/14; Jodi Symmonds §6.2.11-6.2.14 AB/26-27). The Council of Europe’s Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA) has repeatedly highlighted that undocumented Roma children are particularly vulnerable to trafficking in Europe, including Macedonia, where there is a “persistent phenomenon” of undocumented, homeless, Roma children (CARHOM, 2018, pages 6-7; GRETA 2018, pages 18-19 §68-70).

72. Eventually, an opportunity to escape presented itself when another boy told A about some people who could take him to safety in return for livestock. A let them take some stock from the farm and agreed to pay them money after they helped him escape. He was brought to the UK in lorries, where he arrived and claimed asylum on 7 June 2002, then aged 14 (RFR 2002 RB/14-15; Jodi Symmonds §6.2.15-6.2.16 AB/27).

73. SSHD refused A’s asylum claim on 10 February 2002 because she had serious doubts about his account, but granted him exceptional leave to remain until 15 June 2005 (RFR 2002 RB/12, 15). A was forced to work in a car wash until at least around 2005, to pay off his debt to his traffickers (Jodi Symmonds §6.2.24-6.2.25 AB/28-29).

74. On 10 June 2005, A applied in time for further leave, but was treated as if his leave had expired, for reasons which are unclear (RFR 2014 RB/24).

75. A sporadically attended ESOL and other courses between 2003 and 2009 and worked informally trading in scrap metal and making deliveries (Jodi Symmonds §5.2.2-5.2.3 AB/18-19). He was introduced to drugs by other children in the home in which he was living from 2002. He used cannabis and cocaine until 2018 (Jodi Symmonds §5.5.1- 5.5.3 AB/21). He received 25 convictions from the age of 17, including 14 for possession of drugs, two for burglary and theft, driving offences, breaches of court orders and failures to surrender (Jodi Symmonds §5.6.3 AB/21).

76. On 17 February 2018, A committed the index offences of false imprisonment and wounding, the facts of which are set out in the Judge’s Sentencing Remarks at RB/30- 39. The offences were committed by a group and A played an active role by permitting his friend’s flat to be used, providing something with which to tie the victim’s legs, and leaving the address on multiple occasions whilst locking the door (RB/34, E). He was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment for the false imprisonment and 12 months’ imprisonment consecutive for the wounding (RB/38, F-G). A had no previous convictions for violence (RB/35, C).

77. On 4 March 2022, SSHD decided to deport A and refused his asylum and human rights claims (RB/109-123). A appealed.

78. SSHD has made repeated efforts to document A for removal. On 8 July 2016, her internal records indicate that, “Formal checks with the Agency for Civil Registrations in Kosovo have shown that there are no records on the Civil Register for Kosovo for Avdi Alija, 15/06/1987.” On 5 August 2016, a further entry states: Appeal number: HU/00523/2022 79. 80. 81. “KOS MIA colleagues have sent a response after receiving recently obtained fingerprints of Avdi Alija stating the following: ‘We conclude that we don’t possess any data and we don’t have any information that the mentioned person is a citizen of Kosovo so our answer is NEGATIVE. It’s the fifth time that we are sending you the negative answer. If your embassy in Kosovo can find a member of his family please ask that person to come to the MIA office to discuss Avdi Alija’s identity.’” In 2023, SSHD investigated the possibility that A was Albanian and checked A’s fingerprints across France, Italy, Greece and the Netherlands. There was no trace of him in those countries. The Albanian authorities provided photographs of Albanian citizens with similar details to A, but they did not resemble him (witness statement of Michelle Franks, 29 January 2024). By supplementary letter dated 22nd March 2024, SSHD concluded that A was Kosovan and that Kosovo was the country to which she would seek to remove him (RFR 2024, §6).

82. A Country Expert Vebi Kosumi provided a comprehensive and detailed report. His ultimate conclusions were that ‘After reading the documents provided in this case and doing my research, I have concluded that if deported to Kosova, Mr Avdi Alija will face discrimination, potential exploitation, and abuse. Unless Mr Avdi Alija can be found in the civil registry or evidence of his Kosovar citizenship, he will likely be a stateless person, putting him at risk of harm. Kosova will be a ‘foreign’ country for Mr Avdi Alija’. Legal Framework 83. Section 117C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 states: (1) The deportation of foreign criminals is in the public interest. (2) The more serious the offence committed by a foreign criminal, the greater is the public interest in deportation of the criminal. (3) In the case of a foreign criminal ("C") who has not been sentenced to a period of imprisonment of four years or more, the public interest requires C's deportation unless Exception 1 or Exception 2 applies. (4) Exception 1 applies where— (a) C has been lawfully resident in the United Kingdom for most of C's life, (b) C is socially and culturally integrated in the United Kingdom, and (c) there would be very significant obstacles to C's integration into the country to which C is proposed to be deported. (5) Exception 2 applies where C has a genuine and subsisting

relationship with a qualifying partner, or a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a qualifying child, and the effect of C's deportation on the partner or child would be unduly harsh. Appeal number: HU/00523/2022 (6) In the case of a foreign criminal who has been sentenced to a period of imprisonment of at least four years, the public interest requires deportation unless there are very compelling circumstances, over and above those described in Exceptions 1 and 2. (7) The considerations in subsections (1) to (6) are to be taken into account where a court or tribunal is considering a decision to deport a foreign criminal only to the extent that the reason for the decision was the offence or offences for which the criminal has been convicted.

84. Paragraphs 46 to 50 of HA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] UKSC 22 explained very compelling circumstances. It is possible for the Appellant to succeed despite not satisfying Exceptions 1 or 2, or to succeed in a very strong claim that does satisfy Exception 1 or 2. The relevant factors to consider are: 85. the nature and seriousness of the offence committed by the applicant; 86. 87. the length of the applicant's stay in the country from which he or she is to be expelled; the time elapsed since the offence was committed and the applicant's conduct during that period; 88. the nationalities of the various persons concerned; 89. the applicant's family situation, such as the length of the marriage, and other factors expressing the effectiveness of a couple's family life; 90. whether the spouse knew about the offence at the time when he or she entered into a family relationship; 91. whether there are children of the marriage, and if so, their age; and 92. 93. the seriousness of the difficulties which the spouse is likely to encounter in the country to which the applicant is to be expelled … the best interests and well-being of the children, in particular the seriousness of the difficulties which any children of the applicant are likely to encounter in the country to which the applicant is to be expelled; and the solidity of social, cultural and family ties with the host country and with the country of destination.

94. Seriousness of the offence is assessed by reference to the sentence imposed. If there is information showing the sentence was changed for reasons unrelated to seriousness, for example prior offences, personal mitigation or a guilty plea, these should be discounted from the level of sentence when assessing seriousness in the context of section 117C.

95. My approach to assessing credibility comes from KB & AH (credibility-structured approach) Pakistan [2017] UKUT 491 (IAC) where the Upper Tribunal commended consideration of sufficiency of detail, internal consistency, external consistency and plausibility. I consider any documents along with all the evidence in the round. I am also conscious that just because a person has lied about one thing does not mean he has lied about another. Appeal number: HU/00523/2022 96. Section 8 Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004 means that behaviour designed or likely to conceal information, mislead, obstruct or delay consideration of a claim, and claims made after a negative decision has been made or after there was an opportunity to make a claim in a safe country are damaging to credibility.

97. The lawin relation to statelessness, in so far as it is relevant, is contained in the Immigration Rules. They read as follows; 98. S 3.1. The applicant must be a person who is not considered as a national by any state under the operation of its law, as set out in Article 1(1) of the 1954 Statelessness Convention.

99. S 3.2. The applicant must have taken all reasonable steps, but nonetheless failed to: (a) acquire, or re-acquire, nationality with the competent authorities of any relevant countries; and (b) establish a right to admission as a permanent resident, or a status leading to permanent residence, in any relevant countries. (a) (b) Facts 100. I find that the appellant is Avdi Alija, born on 15 June 1987, and that he has consistently maintained that identity since his arrival in the United Kingdom as a child in 2002. I am satisfied that the single occasion on which he provided different details to the police does not materially undermine his credibility. I accept his explanation given his age and immaturity at the time.

101. I find that the appellant is a credible witness as to the history whose account of his origins, ethnicity, displacement and experiences has remained substantially consistent for over two decades and is supported by the expert and background evidence.

102. I find that the appellant was born in Gjakova, Kosovo, to Roma parents and that his family suffered persecution on account of their Roma ethnicity during the conflict in Kosovo.

103. I find that, following the violence in Kosovo in 1999, the appellant’s family home was destroyed, his parents were killed and he was displaced from Kosovo as a child.

104. I find that the appellant was subsequently trafficked and exploited in Macedonia before being brought to the United Kingdom, where he arrived and claimed asylum as a 14- year-old child.

105. I am satisfied that the appellant is not recorded in the Kosovan Civil Registry and that this is consistent with the objective evidence relating to Roma communities affected by conflict, displacement, destruction of civil records and failures of birth registration in the former Yugoslavia.

106. I find that, despite repeated enquiries over a number of years, the Kosovan authorities have been unable to confirm that the appellant is a citizen of Kosovo and have repeatedly provided negative responses when asked to verify his identity and nationality. Appeal number: HU/00523/2022 107. I am satisfied that the appellant has no identity documents, no surviving close family members able to assist him, and no realistic means of obtaining the documentary evidence required to establish citizenship or secure registration in Kosovo.

108. Applying the test contained within the Immigration Rules, I find that the appellant is stateless, in that he is not considered as a national by any state under the operation of its law. I am satisfied that extensive enquiries have failed to establish recognition of him as a citizen of Kosovo or of any other state and that he has taken all reasonable steps available to him to establish his nationality.

109. I find that, whether viewed through the Refugee Convention or Article 8 ECHR, the appellant would face very significant obstacles on return to Kosovo. As a Roma man with no recognised citizenship, no identity documents, no family support, a history of trafficking and significant personal vulnerabilities, he would be at real risk of exclusion, destitution, exploitation and an inability to access basic rights, services and protection.

110. The statelessness and the infringing of Article 3 ECHR amount to Very Compelling Circumstances such that the appellant cannot be deported. Determination of the Issues 111. I find that the appellant’s identity is, on the balance of probabilities, Avdi Alija, born on 15 June 1987. I am satisfied that these were the details he provided when encountered upon arrival in the United Kingdom as a child aged 14 and that he has consistently used those details over a period of approximately 22 years. I accept that the single occasion on which he provided different details, namely those of Faton Ibrhimi, an Albanian national born on 15 June 1987, occurred when he was frightened following an arrest and does not materially undermine the reliability of his claimed identity. I accept his explanation as to why the different details were proffered and although I do not agree with them, I nonetheless take into account the fact of his young age at the time and what can only be described as an appalling troubled childhood.

112. I find the appellant to be a generally credible witness as to the history. I am satisfied that he claimed asylum at the earliest opportunity and that there is no significant history of dishonesty before the Tribunal. I further find that his account of his upbringing, persecution and displacement has remained substantially consistent over a period of more than two decades and is broadly consistent with the objective background evidence. I attach weight to the opinions of both Vebi Kosumi and Jodi Symmonds, who considered the appellant’s account to be plausible and consistent with their respective expertise.

113. I am satisfied that appropriate allowances must be made when assessing the appellant’s evidence. He first gave his account as a 14-year-old child with no formal education and limited literacy. I further take account of the substantial passage of time, together with the evidence concerning his depression and cognitive impairment. I therefore approach any discrepancies or omissions in his account in that context.

114. I find that little, if any, weight can be attached to alleged statements said to have been made by the appellant to Lewisham Council where the respondent has not produced the relevant documents. I am satisfied that any reliance upon undocumented assertions is contrary to established authority. The Home office could have sought to Appeal number: HU/00523/2022 obtain these documents, they did not and given the appellant disputes the contents it is not proper or fair of me to simply find against him when the material evidence is not before me for examination.

115. I find that the absence of any record of the appellant within the Kosovan Civil Registry is consistent with, rather than contrary to, his claimed history. I am satisfied that there is objective evidence demonstrating that many Roma individuals affected by conflict, displacement and deficiencies in civil registration systems were never properly recorded. The country background evidence and the evidence of the expert witness paints a very troubled and difficult picture, especially given the events which befell the appellant with the death of his parents and his trafficking in Macedonia and forced labour.

116. I am satisfied that the country evidence demonstrates that Roma communities in the Western Balkans have been disproportionately affected by non-registration of births, destruction of civil records during the conflicts of the 1990s and barriers to obtaining nationality documentation. I find that these difficulties have resulted in many Roma individuals remaining undocumented across generations and that such circumstances provide a plausible explanation for the appellant's lack of documentary evidence regarding his identity and nationality.

117. The Kosovan authorities have conformed on no less than 5 occasions that they have no record of the appelalnt and no trace of him on any system. He cannot therefore be considered a national of Kosovo absent some documentary proof. He has none to show.

118. The requirements to substantiate a claim to Kosovan nationality are not capable of being met by the appellant. His parents are deceased, there is no documentary evidence of their lives or births nor even his own. He has no other family he can call upon or knows of and given the general lifestyle operated by his parents and the society into which he was born it is highly unlikely there is any registration or documentation of him. This is supported by the country expert. The list of documents required is extraordinarily lengthy. I am satisfied that the appellant has none of the documents required and given that the Kosovan Government themselves have no record of him then there in lies the difficulty.

119. I am satisfied that the appellant has done all he can. He has been in contact with the Kosovan embassy on numerous occasions and has done so with the assistance of those representing him. All to no avail. With assistance from his representatives, he made repeated attempts to contact the Kosovan Embassy and Consulate in September 2026 in order to establish whether he is recognised as a Kosovan national.

120. I find that the Appellant does not have an email address and therefore relied upon telephone contact and assistance from his legal representatives to communicate with the Kosovan authorities.

121. I find that the Appellant attempted to contact the Kosovan Embassy and Consulate using several telephone numbers provided by his representatives, but the calls did not connect. His representatives independently tested the same numbers and experienced the same difficulties. I find that the Appellant provided screenshots of attempted Appeal number: HU/00523/2022 telephone calls in support of his claim that the published contact numbers were not functioning.

122. I find that the Appellant’s representatives sent multiple emails to both the Kosovan Embassy and Consulate seeking assistance in verifying the Appellant’s nationality and requesting alternative means of contact.

123. I find that a representative of the Kosovan Embassy, contacted through an emergency telephone number, stated that enquiries regarding nationality must be made by email and indicated that a response would only be provided if the individual concerned was considered to hold Kosovan nationality.

124. I find that the Kosovan Consulate responded to the enquiries and stated that, before any nationality verification could take place, the Appellant would need to provide a document issued by the authorities of Kosovo, including documents issued before 1999 if they contained sufficient identifying information.

125. I find that the Appellant informed the Kosovan authorities that he possessed no document issued by the Kosovan authorities and that this lack of documentation was the reason for seeking their assistance in the first place.

126. I find that despite repeated requests for guidance, the Kosovan Consulate maintained its position that it could not verify the Appellant’s nationality or disclose information about him without an official document confirming his identity and showing Kosovo as his place of birth.

127. I find that the Appellant’s representatives subsequently provided the Appellant’s personal details and repeatedly asked whether there was any alternative procedure through which nationality could be verified. No substantive response to those enquiries had been received by the date of the witness statement.

128. I am satisfied that the Appellant, through his legal representatives, made sustained and genuine efforts to engage with the Kosovan authorities for the purpose of establishing his nationality, but those efforts did not result in confirmation of nationality because the authorities required documentary evidence that the Appellant was unable to provide.

129. The Home Office have also attempted to locate the appellant as a national of other countries. I find that the Respondent undertook extensive enquiries to establish the Appellant’s identity and nationality through a specialist team within the Foreign National Offender Returns Command.

130. I find that the Appellant has provided a number of different identities and aliases during his interactions with the Home Office, including variations of his name and biographical details.

131. I find that enquiries were made through Home Office International Operations in Albania, with checks conducted by local partners against the various identities attributed to the Appellant. I find that verification enquiries were also undertaken with the authorities in France, Italy, Greece and the Netherlands. Appeal number: HU/00523/2022 132. I find that checks conducted in France, Italy and Greece against the Appellant’s biographical details resulted in no trace being identified. Fingerprint enquiries in those countries likewise resulted in no trace.

133. I find that enquiries undertaken with the Netherlands authorities similarly resulted in no trace of the Appellant being found.

134. I find that on 5 October 2023 the Albanian authorities reported that checks conducted with the relevant civil registry authorities in both Albania and Kosovo revealed no trace of the Appellant under any of the identities provided.

135. I find that on 17 October 2023 the Albanian authorities identified individuals with similar personal details within their systems and sought photographs to enable a comparison with the Appellant.

136. I find that the Respondent pursued those enquiries over a number of months, repeatedly requesting updates and photographs from the Albanian authorities between October 2023 and January 2024. I find that photographs were eventually provided on 26 January 2024 and were compared with the Appellant. I find that the comparison established that the individuals identified by the Albanian authorities were not the Appellant and were different persons.

137. I am satisfied that the Respondent made sustained and wide-ranging enquiries, both domestically and internationally, to verify the Appellant’s identity and nationality, but those enquiries failed to identify any official record corresponding to the Appellant under the details provided.

138. Taking the evidence as a whole and applying the lower standard of proof, I find that the appellant should be given the benefit of the doubt in relation to his claimed identity, nationality and personal history.

139. The Home Office tentatively suggested that the appellant was ‘obviously lying’ about his name and date of birth but could not substantiate this claim in any meaningful way.

140. I find that the appellant may well have a claim to Kosovan nationality if he could establish that he was born in Kosovo to parents who were citizens of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. However, I am satisfied that the practical obstacles to proving that claim are substantial. I find that his parents are deceased, that he possesses no relevant identity documents, and that he has no known surviving relatives able to assist him. I further find that the documentary requirements for registration are extensive and that the appellant is not realistically in a position to satisfy them. Without being churlish however he may well have a claim to Albanian nationality or Frech nationality or German nationality if he could establish he was born in any of those countries and could produce the required documentation to substantiate a claim for nationality.

141. I am satisfied that the appellant’s circumstances are consistent with wider evidence concerning undocumented Roma individuals in Kosovo. I find that children whose births were not registered, particularly those from Roma, Ashkali and Balkan-Egyptian communities, continue to face a significant risk of statelessness or practical exclusion from citizenship rights. Appeal number: HU/00523/2022 142. Whilst I have considered the respondent’s reliance upon MA (Ethiopia), I am not satisfied that the appellant has failed to take reasonable steps to establish his nationality. I find it significant that the Kosovan authorities have previously rejected his claim to be a citizen on multiple occasions. I am satisfied that the appellant possesses no additional evidence capable of materially altering that position. I further find that his circumstances are materially distinguishable from those considered in MA (Ethiopia).

143. I find that, in accordance with paragraph S 3.1, the Appellant is not considered a national by any state under the operation of its law. Despite enquiries undertaken with the authorities of Kosovo and Albania, no nationality has been confirmed. The evidence demonstrates that the relevant authorities have been unable or unwilling to recognise the Appellant as one of their nationals on the basis of the information available to them.

144. I further find that the requirements of paragraph S 3.2 are met. The Appellant has taken all reasonable steps available to him to acquire or re-acquire nationality, including repeated attempts, both personally and through his legal representatives, to engage with the Kosovan authorities and obtain verification of his nationality. He has also sought guidance as to any further steps required to establish nationality but has been unable to progress matters because the authorities require documents that he does not possess. I am satisfied that, notwithstanding those efforts, he has failed to acquire or re-acquire nationality with any relevant state.

145. I additionally find that there is no evidence that the Appellant has established a right of admission as a permanent resident, or a status leading to permanent residence, in any relevant country. Extensive enquiries undertaken by the Respondent with authorities in Kosovo, Albania and several European states failed to identify any official record linking the Appellant to a recognised nationality or immigration status. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the Appellant has taken all reasonable steps available to him but has nonetheless failed to establish a right to permanent admission or residence in any relevant country.

146. I find that, whether the appellant is properly regarded as a Kosovan national or as a stateless person whose former habitual residence was Kosovo, the relevant country for the purposes of assessing risk on return is Kosovo.

147. I am satisfied that the appellant has previously suffered serious harm connected to his Roma ethnicity. I find that his family experienced discrimination because of their ethnicity and that, during the conflict in Kosovo, his home was destroyed and his parents were killed. I further find that he subsequently became a victim of trafficking and exploitation in Macedonia and during his journey to the United Kingdom. I regard those experiences as strong evidence supporting the existence of a well-founded fear of future harm.

148. I accept the evidence of Vebi Kosumi that Roma individuals continue to face significant discrimination and marginalisation in Kosovo. I find that Roma communities remain disadvantaged in relation to housing, employment, education, healthcare and political participation. I am satisfied that the appellant, as a Roma man without documentation, familial support or access to citizenship records, would face an enhanced risk of exclusion, destitution and exploitation. I further find that he would be particularly vulnerable to criminal exploitation and trafficking. Appeal number: HU/00523/2022 149. I find that the objective evidence demonstrates ongoing concerns in Kosovo regarding corruption, impunity, failures of accountability and crimes targeting ethnic minorities and other marginalised groups. I am satisfied that such conditions increase the appellant’s vulnerability.

150. I accept the expert evidence that adequate state protection would not be available to the appellant in practice. I am satisfied that internal relocation would not provide a reasonable or durable solution given his ethnicity, lack of documentation, absence of support networks and personal vulnerabilities.

151. I place limited reliance upon SI (mixed Serb/Roma parentage) Kosovo CG [2009] UKAIT 00011. The issues before me are materially different from those considered in that country guidance case. The present appeal is concerned with whether the Appellant is recognised as a national by any state and whether he has taken all reasonable steps to establish or acquire nationality for the purposes of the Statelessness Rules. It is not concerned with the risk on return to Kosovo arising from mixed Serb/Roma ethnicity.

152. The factual circumstances are also significantly different. In the present case, extensive enquiries have been undertaken by the Respondent with authorities in Kosovo, Albania, France, Italy, Greece and the Netherlands. Those enquiries failed to identify any official record corresponding to the Appellant under the personal details and aliases provided. The evidence before me is therefore directed towards nationality determination rather than country conditions affecting a recognised national of Kosovo.

153. I further note that the Appellant's representatives made repeated attempts to engage directly with the Kosovan authorities. The Kosovan Consulate did not confirm the Appellant's nationality and maintained that nationality verification could only proceed upon production of official documentary evidence. The Appellant was unable to provide such documentation and no alternative means of verification were offered.

154. The central issue is therefore whether the Appellant is considered a national by any state under the operation of its law. The evidence from the relevant authorities does not establish recognition of the Appellant as a national of Kosovo, Albania, or any other state. That question was not addressed in SI, which proceeded on a materially different factual basis.

155. I also consider that the evidence before me is specific, recent and directly concerned with the Appellant's circumstances. It includes enquiries and responses obtained from the relevant authorities between 2023 and 2026. Such evidence is of greater assistance in determining the issues in this appeal than general country guidance concerned with a different category of case.

156. Accordingly, whilst I have had regard to SI, I do not find it determinative of the issues before me. The appeal falls to be determined by reference to the evidence concerning the Appellant's nationality status and his efforts to obtain recognition from the relevant authorities, rather than by reference to country guidance addressing the position of persons of mixed Serb/Roma parentage in Kosovo.

157. I find that there are factors of considerable weight in the appellant’s favour when assessing proportionality. I am satisfied that he has lived in the United Kingdom for Appeal number: HU/00523/2022 approximately 22 years, having arrived as a child. I find that he has no meaningful ties to Kosovo. I further find that he was a victim of trafficking whilst a minor and that he presently suffers from mental health difficulties. I am satisfied that, without documentation or recognised legal status in Kosovo, he would be unable to access essential services, including healthcare, and would face severe obstacles to integration. I find that he would be at a real risk of marginalisation and destitution.

158. I further find that there appears to be no realistic prospect of the appellant’s removal from the United Kingdom within a reasonable period. I am satisfied that this situation is not one of his own making. In those circumstances, I find that refusal of leave would not materially advance the public interest in immigration control or deportation. I accept the evidence that continued uncertainty and exclusion from lawful employment, integration and appropriate therapeutic support are likely to increase rather than reduce the appellant’s vulnerability and risk of future offending. Taking all matters into account, I am satisfied that the cumulative circumstances of the case are capable of amounting to very compelling circumstances and that the interference with the appellant’s Article 8 rights would be disproportionate.

159. The length of the sentence means that the appelalnt cannot defeat the deportation order on the basis of his private life or any claimed family life. In any event, he disavows any family life claim.

160. I am satisfied that there are very compelling circumstances over and above the exceptions contained within section 117C. This is not a case in which the appellant merely faces difficulty on return. Rather, it is a case in which an individual who arrived in the United Kingdom as a child over two decades ago has been unable, despite sustained efforts by both himself and the respondent, to establish recognition as a national of any state. Extensive enquiries have been undertaken with Kosovo, Albania and a number of European states. Those enquiries have consistently failed to identify any official record corresponding to the appellant. Equally, repeated approaches to the Kosovan authorities by both the appellant and his legal representatives have failed to secure confirmation of nationality or any practical route by which nationality could be established.

161. I attach significant weight to the fact that the appellant has done all that could reasonably be expected of him. The evidence demonstrates persistent attempts to engage with the Kosovan Embassy and Consulate, coupled with substantial enquiries by the Home Office itself. Despite those efforts, no state has recognised him as a national and no right of permanent admission elsewhere has been identified.

162. These circumstances are compounded by the appellant’s particular vulnerabilities. I have found that he is a Roma man who suffered severe adversity in childhood, including the loss of his parents, displacement arising from conflict, trafficking and exploitation. I accept the expert evidence that undocumented Roma individuals in Kosovo remain at heightened risk of marginalisation, exclusion and exploitation. The appellant would return without documentation, without family support, without access to nationality records and without any realistic means of regularising his status. That is even if he were to be permitted to enter which he is not.

163. I further find it significant that there is no realistic prospect of the appellant overcoming these barriers. The documentary requirements imposed by the Kosovan authorities cannot be met because the appellant possesses none of the required documents, his Appeal number: HU/00523/2022 parents are deceased, and no family members are available to assist. This is therefore not a temporary administrative difficulty but a profound and enduring obstacle affecting every aspect of his ability to access protection, employment, housing, healthcare and basic civil rights.

164. Taking all matters cumulatively, including his lengthy residence in the United Kingdom since childhood, his accepted personal history, his practical statelessness, the failure of all nationality enquiries, his Roma ethnicity, his vulnerability to exploitation and destitution and the absence of any realistic solution to those difficulties, I am satisfied that the consequences of deportation would be exceptionally harsh. Viewed through the lens of Article 8 and section 117C(6), these factors amount to very compelling circumstances over and above those described in Exceptions 1 and 2 such that the public interest in deportation is outweighed.

165. However, the most pertinent issue is that the appellant is stateless. He thus cannot be removed. To the extent that removal would take place to Kosovo then I am satisfied he would face treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR. To the extent that I am required to so pronounce it, the fact that the appelalnt would face treatment contrary to Article 3 is a very compelling circumstance and as such the appellant shall not be deported. Notice of Decision 166. The appeal is allowed. To the Respondent – Fee Award No fee is paid or payable and therefore there can be no fee award. Signature Signed IDB First-tier Tribunal Judge Boyes Date 30th September 2026 19