AYA & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 1742 (Admin)

“The current Guidance states that if a reconsideration request is accepted and the outcome of the reconsideration is another negative decision (the negative decision is upheld ), a reconsideration of the second negative decision can only be requested where there are good reasons for why the decision should be reconsidered once more. Negative NRM decisions are not appealable, so the reconsideration policy provides an opportunity to challenge the negative decision where there are concerns it was not made in line with guidance. It also allows for new evidence to be provided. Beyond this, any challenge to negative decisions will be through judicial review. The purpose of the reconsideration policy is to ensure the NRM operates fairly and proportionately, balancing the need to ensure decision-making is accurate and informed by appropriate evidence and delivering administrative efficiency and maintaining the integrity of the process.” (Emphasis added).

“The Modern Slavery Act 2015 sets out the statutory duty to identify victims of modern slavery. This duty is discharged by Statutory First Responders which includes parts of the Home Office (e.g. Border Force and Immigration Enforcement), the Police and Local Authorities. The National Referral Mechanism (NRM) is the UK's framework for identifying and supporting victims of modern slavery and human trafficking. The NRM incorporates a two-stage decision-making process: when an individual is referred into the NRM, a decision will be taken by one of two Competent Authorities within the Home Office, on whether there are Reasonable Grounds (RG) to believe that the individual is a victim of modern slavery. If a positive RG decision is made, a Conclusive Grounds (CG) decision will be made as to whether on the balance of probabilities there are sufficient grounds to decide that the individual is a victim of modern slavery. A negative RG means that the NRM process has concluded and there are no NRM barriers to removal. This is, however, potentially subject to a successful reconsideration request, which typically are time-bound and generally only one is permissible but to note the current policy on reconsiderations is subject to legal challenge, and is being reviewed and made clearer.”

“the IECA considers the vast majority of Hillmore cases. RG decisions are being actively prioritised and are made in < 1 working day. For individuals in receipt of a positive RG decision, onward decision-making is also prioritised with conclusive grounds (CG) decisions expected to be made within 50 calendar days of the NRM referral (this includes the 30-day recovery period).”

“25. It is not, and to my knowledge has never been, the intention of the Home Office for a reconsideration window to act as a barrier to removal. Once this position was set out by the claimant’s solicitors and accepted as arguable by the judge, work was undertaken at pace by Home Office operational, policy and legal teams to understand the impact of the injunction and work through options for policy change. 26. Treating the 30-day window for applying for reconsideration as a barrier to removal would have significant consequences on the SSHD’s ability to pursue an effective removals policy. It would mean that anyone in receipt of a negative NRM decision (and therefore not recognised as a victim of trafficking) would be protected from removal for a further 30 days after that decision. This could provide an opportunity for the NRM to be misused by individuals raising false modern slavery claims in order to delay removal and seek release from immigration detention. Although the timing of CTK’s interim relief hearing (coming relatively early in the pilot) meant that we were unaware of the exact extent to which this would impact the individuals the SSHD intended to return to France under the Treaty, previous operational experience indicated there would likely be a significant volume of individuals in this group being referred into the NRM. We are now aware that around 40% of individuals notified of the intent to return them to France under the Treaty have been referred into the NRM. 27. In the context of the Treaty, there was an added urgency as it requires that an individual be removed to France within a set timeframe of their acceptance by the French government (subject to the possibility of agreeing an extension) and therefore any delay to removal could have a detrimental impact on the pilot. 28. On 17 September, draft advice was provided to support initial Ministerial consideration of how to respond. The draft advice identified two main options. Option 1 was to amend the reconsideration policy so that in the context of removals to an ECAT and ECHR signatory country, no reconsideration request could be made. Limiting the policy amendment so it only affected those being removed to countries which were ECAT and ECHR signatories was proposed as an additional safeguard for individuals. While the policy only applies to those with negative decisions, who should not require onward identification or support in the country they are returned to, this approach ensured the policy change only applied in the context of returns to countries which are committed to providing a level of protection for fundamental rights that is likely to make it feasible for someone to continue to challenge the outcome of the NRM decision after their return should they so wish. In short, this context “ECHR and ECAT signatories” was proposed as a useful proxy for the provision of a minimum level of treatment. We recognised that this may weigh in the balance of convenience in the event of applications for injunctive relief to prevent removals being sought. Option 2 was to provide that reconsideration can be undertaken from an ECAT signatory/third country. Later the same day, officials recommended Option 1 and a final submission regarding possible further policy changes, with regards to the reconsideration policy, was submitted that afternoon. Ministers were also provided with an initial equality impact assessment which is kept under review as per best practise. 29. The policy change was agreed by the Home Secretary, and the change went live on gov.uk on the evening of 17 September. It was implemented by competent authorities with immediate effect. 30. At the time that the reconsideration policy was amended, the SSHD relied on the objective information contained within the CPIN, including reference to France’s status as a Tier 1 country in the 2024 USSD TiP report, GRETA monitoring, French government produced documents and detail on provision of support (including details of government provision and NGOs). 31. In parallel, the SSHD was also liaising with the French government and NGOs to strengthen the section of the CPIN relating to provision of support for victims of trafficking in France. This ongoing work was not directly relevant to the reconsideration policy change considered by Ministers at this time by virtue of the group impacted by the reconsideration policy change being those in receipt of a negative decision and therefore who were considered not to require support in France. 32. It is important to note that this change to the Reconsideration Policy is situated in the context of wider reforms to the Reconsideration Policy triggered by the litigation in EO (referred to above at paragraph 21) which have been under consideration for a number of months prior to the amendment of paragraph 14.216in September 2025. This work is with a view to clarifying the policy and the process of requesting a reconsideration and ensuring that the policy does not incentivise late NRM claims or reconsideration requests, impede removals and to ensure the policy is applied consistently. To date that work remains ongoing. This means that any amendment to ensure the continued effective operation of removals, including under the pilot with France, whilst not a temporary policy, was not – and is not – anticipated to be in force in its current form for a significantly long period of time. Although the work remains to be completed, officials have worked continuously to progress this. Officials intend to share advice with Ministers for their approval in the very near future, and once Ministerial agreement to the recommendations is secured, the updated reconsiderations policy would be implemented and operationalised shortly after.”

“33. Internal communications were circulated across the competent authorities on 18 September 2025 notifying them of a change to the reconsideration policy and setting out directions for decision makers to follow. Where a reconsideration request is received (whether or not this is for an individual who has the right to reconsideration), the content of the request will still be reviewed to some extent and where it is practical in all the circumstances. I note that such informal review will not be recorded. This review is completed by a HEO Technical Specialist. If further advice is needed, for example for a particularly complex request or if considering applying discretion outside of the reconsideration policy, it would be escalated to an SEO and/or a G7 Chief Caseworker. If it is considered that the negative decision was fundamentally flawed or if new evidence is provided that renders the initial negative finding untenable, a reconsideration will be undertaken. 34. Reconsideration requests cannot be made from outside of the UK and this was the policy position presented in the case of CTK. In the case of DYC, an application for interim relief was refused on 26 November 2025 and the individual was removed to France the following day. The individual’s legal representatives continued to pursue the judicial review which included a challenge to the negative RG decision. After reviewing the grounds, the Immigration Enforcement Competent Authority (IECA) identified medical evidence that was before the decision maker but may not have been adequately considered in the RG decision. It was therefore considered appropriate to reconsider the RG decision taking into account the omitted medical evidence. A further negative RG decision was made on 9 February 2026. This is an example of the sort of reconsideration that is referred to at paragraph 8 above.”

“The Home Secretary has reviewed and agrees with Option 1- to amend the reconsideration policy to set out that no reconsideration is permitted for individuals who receive a negative RG or CG where that individual is also liable for removal to a country that is a signatory to ECAT and ECHR. This policy change should be implemented immediately.”

“With immediate effect there is now a change to our reconsideration policy. . . . The addition to the reconsideration policy is [language set out at 14.216] What this means in essence for us, is that any individual that the Home Office intends to remove, where the intended country of removal (note, not nationality) is a ECAT+ECHR signatory country, will now no longer have a right to a reconsideration. . . . In order to facilitate this, negative decision letters on these cases must be tweaked to make it clear to the PV/their legal representatives. . . . This must now be changed before service for all relevant decision letters to the following . . Paragraphs 14.217 to 14.235 of the Modern Slavery statutory guidance do not apply to individuals who have received a negative RG or CG decision, and where the SSHD intends to remove that individual to a country that is a signatory to the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings (ECAT) and European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It is noted that the SSHD intends to remove you/your client to a signatory state of the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings (ECAT) and European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). As a result of this, you/your client are/is not entitled to a reconsideration of our decision. You/your client are/is entitled to seek legal advice. . . . For any FOIs, disclosures, complaints or queries raised via Central Functions relating to Hillmore, or the new reconsideration policy please raise to Amy Burke and myself.”

“‘Official’ VoTs are recognised by the authorities because they’ve agreed to help the police in judicial proceedings against the traffickers. If you don’t cooperate with the police then you’re not officially recognised as a VoT but can still get assistance from NGOs, making you an ‘unofficial’ VoT. Other sources – including GoF – have been really vague on this distinction so if there is anything in the report that alludes to this please can you let me know. The difference between the 2 is critical from our point of view as I expect that the majority of people in the UK who claim to be VoT will not have been trafficked by people in France (they’re more likely to be claiming to have been VoT in Libya, for example). This means that most of the VoT returnees to France from the UK will be assessed by the French as ‘unofficial’ VoT as they won’t be involved in criminal investigations against traffickers.”

“The associations concerned would be better placed to answer this question, but to our knowledge there is no difference. On the question of access to rights in general, and access to specific accommodation in the DNA, no difference is made.”

“Asylum seekers are entitled to accommodation and receive an allowance. Accommodation is state-funded but managed through a semi-public company (Adoma) or awarded via tender to NGOs. France also provides an additional daily allowance paid to those who are not accommodated free of charge. There have been challenges with meeting demand for asylum accommodation. . . . However, limited instances of ECHR breaches in specific circumstances is not illustrative of a systemic failure in the provision of asylum accommodation. . . . Claimants are screened for vulnerabilities including health conditions, trauma and trafficking. Vulnerable people can request additional support during interviews and their needs are taken into account when assessing reception conditions. During the first 3 months of an adult’s stay in France, they only have access to urgent health care. Children have access to full health care upon arrival. After this 3 month period, asylum seekers have full access to healthcare through the Universal Health Protection Scheme (PUMA). However, the threshold in Article 3 medical cases is very high. . . . a person needs to show there are substantial grounds for believing that they would face a real risk of being exposed to a serious, rapid and irreversible decline in their state of health resulting in intense suffering or a significant (substantial) reduction in life expectancy as a result of the absence of appropriate medical treatment or lack of access to such treatment in the country of return. Treatment for such a condition is almost certainly provided for under the initial urgent health care system. . . . Asylum seekers can benefit from public mental health care through PUMA. However, capacity and language barriers can hinder access in practice. A large number of NGOs provide support to asylum seekers and refugees, including assistance with refugee status determination, accommodation, employment, and access to medical care (including mental healthcare). Despite difficulties in accessing mental health care, there does not appear to be a general or systemic unwillingness or inability to provide support to those who need it. . . . There are two potential support networks for victims of trafficking (VoT) who make an asylum claim. During asylum interviews, potential VoT are informed of the possibility of cooperating with law enforcement efforts but are also told that this process is separate from their asylum application and not a prerequisite for granting of international protection. They can benefit from the range of support services available to asylum seekers, including enhanced support to VoT in specialist accommodation (where applicable), or by referrals to specialist organisations to receive social or psychosocial support. However, in practice, there is no material difference in the level of support provided or services available.”

“1. victims who are recognised by state authorities due to their cooperation with law enforcement (the minority). 2. victims who do not cooperate with law enforcement and who are not recognised by state authorities (the majority) but who are recognised and supported by NGOs.”

“17.9.5 Ac.Sé also noted the 3 eligibility criteria the organisation uses to decide which people to assist: ‘The criteria for support are: 1. Adult 2. Victim of human trafficking or pimping 3. Locally endangered and requiring geographical removal, the danger being linked to the acts of exploitation.’ 17.9.6 Regarding Ac.Sé’s eligibility criteria, the February 2026 Z&F expert report commented: ‘It is… my understanding that, the Ac.Sé scheme being limited to situations of VOTs facing a danger in France, it excludes VOTs having suffered a crime exclusively outside of France which does not continue on the French territory. I therefore gather that victims of human trafficking entirely outside of France would not be entitled to the scheme’.”

“39. I have been asked to consider whether information that has come to light since the decision to amend the MSA Guidance on 17 September 2025 would have changed that decision. In view of the Home Secretary’s clear priorities, there was a clear policy imperative to ensure that removals to France could continue and given the terms of the Treaty discussed above (at 37), allowing 30 days for reconsideration to be a barrier to removal would have jeopardised that. In order for the policy to deliver a deterrent effect it is necessary that removals take place and are seen to take place. 40. In my assessment, therefore, had the Home Office known what is now known about the conditions in France in relation to support for victims of trafficking, the reconsideration policy would still have been amended to ensure that it did not operate as a barrier to the effective removal of individuals under this operation. The decision would have been a matter for the Secretary of State, but that would have been the advice I would have provided, and (without pre-empting the Secretary of State's decision) would have expected it to have been accepted noting the imperative ministers place on ensuring return of those with no right to be in the UK.”

“67. The NRM process plainly and correctly includes a discretionary power to reopen negative decisions. The discretion must be exercised in accordance with the duty to identify victims. I accept Ms Luh’s submissions on the nature of that duty: it must be performed of the state’s own motion; it is a continuing duty; and if there has been a prior negative decision, relevant evidence casting doubt on the correctness of that decision must not be disregarded. 68. To hold otherwise would be to dilute the content of the duty and water down the protection afforded to victims of trafficking by ECAT, the Anti-Trafficking Directive and article 4 of the ECHR, which is absolute and may not be subject to derogation even in time of war or other national emergency. If victims of trafficking could be denied that protection for administrative reasons, the NRM would not be operating in compliance with the international obligations of the United Kingdom.”

“Victims may have problems in dealing with direct interviewing, especially in contexts which seem to them to be adversarial.”

“The availability of judicial review does not make the policy lawful if it is otherwise unlawful. The evidence before me indicates willingness to depart from the policy under direct threat of litigation but I have no evidence of any broader willingness on the SCA’s part to entertain reconsideration requests outside the policy, other than under threat of litigation. That does not surprise me because to do so would contradict the terms of the CA guidance.”

“However strong the merits of a case for reconsideration, the identity of the requesting person may determine whether the request is considered or ignored. In my judgment, that is an unlawful fetter on the discretion to reopen negative decisions.”

“At the time that the reconsideration policy was amended, the SSHD relied on the objective information contained within the CPIN, including reference to France’s status as a Tier 1 country in the 2024 USSD TiP report, GRETA monitoring, French government produced documents and detail on provision of support (including details of government provision and NGOs).”

“In the CPIN . . . no mention is made of French authorities disregarding evidence of trafficking of non-French nationals which occurred outside France and at the hands of non-French nationals. Indeed, at § 15.5.4, the CPIN notes that, in its February 2025 response to GRETA’s questionnaire: “[The French government] summarised the main trends in foreign national victims, explaining that foreign victims were exploited by highly structured transnational criminal networks. Networks from Latin America and the Caribbean, including the Dominican Republic, Paraguay, Brazil and Colombia, facilitated prostitution in France, whereas Nigerian nationals, who had previously made up a significant proportion of victims, had almost disappeared.”

“It is concerned with the immediate treatment to be accorded to those in respect of whom there are reasonable grounds to believe that they are victims of trafficking. It is also concerned with their medium term treatment for immigration purposes in the event that it is accepted administratively that they have been trafficked. It is also concerned with the criminalisation of behaviour associated with trafficking and the need to investigate and prosecute offences.”

“the applicants’ allegations fall within the ambit of Article 4 of the Convention . . . The alleged treatment prohibited by Article 4 was not imputed to organs of the Austrian State, but to private individuals, namely the applicants’ employers, over a period of several years in Dubai and two to three days in Austria. Therefore, the present case concerns the positive obligations arising under this provision, rather than the negative obligations.” (Emphasis added).

“Article 4 of the Convention, under its procedural limb, does not require States to provide for universal jurisdiction over trafficking offences committed abroad . . . [T]he Anti-Trafficking Convention only requires States Parties to provide for jurisdiction over any trafficking offence committed on their own territory, or by or against one of their nationals . . . The Court therefore cannot but conclude that, in the present case, under the Convention, there was no obligation incumbent on Austria to investigate the applicants’ recruitment in the Philippines or their alleged exploitation in the United Arab Emirates.”

“The trafficking of human beings will frequently involve activity in two or more jurisdictions. This case illustrates the point. There is a suggestion that the respondent was trafficked from Vietnam to Russia. On any view, there is a suggestion that he was subjected to forced labour in Russia. There was then a suggestion that he might have been vulnerable to further exploitation in the United Kingdom were he to make contact with the individuals whose details he had been given. The ECHR does not impose procedural obligations upon States Parties to investigate matters which are outside their jurisdiction for the purposes of article 1 ECHR.”

“[28] In this part of its judgment the Strasbourg Court was careful to reflect the limits of the reach of the ECHR. The procedural obligation to investigate violations of article 4 ECHR, i.e. trafficking offences in this context, relates to such offences within a state’s own jurisdiction. There is no obligation to investigate trafficking offences which might have occurred within the jurisdiction of other states (whether parties to the ECHR or not). The limit of the duty in those circumstances is to cooperate with other states, in particular through the use of international mutual legal assistance. [29] Thus, the focus of the procedural obligation under article 4 is to investigate cases of alleged trafficking and to identify those responsible for crimes committed within the jurisdiction of the State Party in question with a view to prosecution for offences which have occurred within that jurisdiction. It is also concerned with immediate relief for those suffering harm and coercion. This latter aspect of the investigative obligation would arise, for example, if a credible report were received that a factory of the sort in Russia described by the respondent were operating in this country.”

“the question whether someone had been a victim of trafficking, when under consideration by the Competent Authority, is not confined to the position in the United Kingdom. The decision maker in this case considered whether the respondent had been trafficked from Vietnam to Russia, and the circumstances of what had occurred in Russia over a period of almost four years. . . . Of course, what has happened to a person before he arrives in the United Kingdom may shed light on the question whether he has been trafficked to the United Kingdom. But it does not follow that article 4 ECHR imposed, in this case or similar cases, a duty to investigate the circumstances in which the respondent lived and worked in Russia.”

“To date, the Court’s case-law relating to after-the-fact responses to trafficking has focused on investigation and punishment. However, although essential for deterrence, such measures cannot wipe away the material harm suffered by the victims of trafficking that has already taken place or practically assist their recovery from their experiences.”

“Similar considerations apply in respect of affording compensation to trafficking victims—particularly in respect of lost earnings. The possibility for them to seek compensation in respect of lost earnings, especially earnings withheld from them by their traffickers, would constitute one means of ensuring restitutio in integrum for those victims by making good the full extent of the harm suffered by them. It would also go a considerable way (by providing them with the financial means to rebuild their lives) towards upholding their dignity, assisting their recovery, and reducing the risks of their falling victim again to traffickers. This cannot therefore be seen as a secondary consideration; it must be considered an essential part of the integrated State response to trafficking required under Article 4 of the Convention. Moreover, redress for the victim should be the overarching consideration from a human-rights perspective.”

“there will be other obligations, whether arising under article 4 or otherwise, which are triggered by a past history of trafficking alone -- ie in the absence of any real and immediate future risk to the victims. For example, victims may require support and treatment for the consequences of past ill-treatment; and the state is required where possible to bring criminal proceedings against traffickers. But obligations of that kind are outside the scope of the issues raised in these proceedings.”

“…removal from the UK will constitute an interference with your private life…it is not accepted that the consequences of your removal would be of such gravity as to engage Article 8. While you suffer from trauma-related symptoms, appropriate treatment and mental health support are available and accessible [in] France.”

“No evidence has been received to indicate that you are in receipt of any medical treatment to assist with your recovery. It is noted that no medical treatment would be actively disrupted should you return to France. When considering current circumstances regards ongoing treatment, a holistic assessment is also undertaken regards what treatment is available and accessible in a victim’s country of return – in your case, this consideration is based upon France. Country information for France demonstrates that treatment for PTSD and depression is available in your country of return: . . . Country information for France and Article 3 ECHR states France has mechanisms, facilities and treatments in place to aid people with mental health conditions, and therefore there will be suitable care and support available for you upon your return, should you require. You have raised concerns regarding your mental health and healthcare treatment, the CPIN demonstrates that you can access free medical consultations through the (PASS Psy) during the initial three-month period following your arrival in France and you may also benefit from the support of well-established NGOs that provide mental health services and assistance to asylum seekers. Therefore, it is considered you will have health support in France.”

“France has a functioning healthcare system with a variety of healthcare providers, a language support system to facilitate any communication barriers, and financial assistance regarding your entitlement to receive subsistence allowances that are provided to asylum seekers in France. Having considered all the relevant evidence available to the IECA, it is considered that you are more likely than not to be able to access the required treatment in France. It is therefore considered that both pharmaceutical and psychiatric treatment for your medical conditions related to your exploitation, can be accessed on your return to France. To conclude, you are not currently receiving any ongoing medical treatment in relation to the relevant exploitation. The IECA has identified the recommended treatment in relation to the relevant exploitation is capable of being met on your return to France. Furthermore, as per VTS guidance, the above concludes there would be no disruption to your ongoing recovery in making this decision to refuse your VTS.”

“did not claim asylum in France because you did not have the opportunity to do so. It was your intention to come to the UK as you explicitly stated that you flew to France to come to the UK in order to claim asylum and potentially start your business here. Furthermore, you paid an agent by your own account to transport you from Calais to the UK and also contradicted yourself in regard to whether you did make an attempt to claim asylum in France or not.”

“Although the Secretary of State recognises that persons trafficked outside France who do not engage French criminal jurisdiction may not be identified as victims of trafficking for certain purposes by the state, the CIN demonstrates that NGO-based identification and support operate independently of criminal jurisdiction and form a core part of France’s anti-trafficking framework. Furthermore, if AYA claims asylum he will have access to support (including accommodation or other financial support) as an asylum seeker”

“Article 2 & 3 105. As set out above, you have not provided compelling evidence to suggest that removal to France would have a detriment effect on your overall life. Furthermore, France is a safe third country (being a signatory to the refugee convention and is a place where you could apply to be recognised as a refugee and, if eligible, receive protection accordingly. 106. You have not provided compelling evidence to suggest that your health condition could result in a serious, rapid and irreversible decline in your state of health resulting in intense suffering, or a significant reduction in life expectancy as a result of the absence or lack of access to appropriate treatment. This indicates that suitable healthcare and mental health services are available and accessible to asylum seekers in France. 107. Even if your health were to deteriorate, as outlined above, appropriate treatment will be available in France, free of charge, should you require it. You have not provided any credible evidence to suggest that you would be denied or excluded from such care. Therefore, it cannot be reasonably argued that you reach the threshold in AM (Zimbabwe), and consequently any Article 3 claim you may make on medical grounds cannot on any legitimate view succeed. Article 4 108. Furthermore, your rights under Article 4 would not be breached by your removal from the UK to France. France has a comprehensive legal framework criminalising human trafficking. Furthermore, France is a signatory to key international anti-trafficking conventions, and operates national protection systems offering accommodation, residence permits, and victim support. If you were to ask for further help from the French authorities, all the necessary support is in place to help you. Therefore, an Article 4 claim is also bound to fail. Article 8 – Mental Health 109. Your rights under Article 8 would not be breached by your removal from the UK to France. You have provided no evidence to suggest that your mental health is such that removal from the UK would interfere with your Article 8 rights, and in any case, removal would be both necessary and proportionate given the significant public interest in maintaining fair and effective immigration control. It is also considered that mental health treatment and psychological support are available to you in France and there is no indication that removal would cause a disproportionate impact on your wellbeing. Therefore, an Article 8 claim on medical grounds is also bound to fail. 110. It is also considered that your rights under Article 8 would not be breached by your removal from the UK to France. 111. You have not told us about a partner, parent or dependent children in the UK, therefore we have not considered the family life Rules under Appendix FM. 112. For the reasons above it is considered that your claim cannot succeed on any legitimate view and any immigration judge, properly directing him or herself and applying the law to the facts and the same evidence, would inevitably conclude the same. Therefore, your claim that your removal from the UK would be unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 is wholly lacking in substance and any appeal would be bound to fail.”

“It is clear from the CIN that appropriate medical treatment for psychiatric conditions, including PTSD and depression, is available in France. Nothing you have raised demonstrates that your particular conditions cannot be addressed and therefore it is considered that the required medical treatment is available. From the Secretary of State’s position, while Dr Syed’s report is noted, it does not undermine the central conclusion that France provides a functioning healthcare system capable of meeting the needs of asylum seekers. As set out in the CIN, urgent psychiatric care, mental health assessments, medication, and referral pathways are immediately accessible through PASS services, with full medical, psychiatric and psychological coverage available after three months under PUMA and CSS. The fact that Dr Syed recommends trauma focused therapy and medication does not demonstrate that such treatment would be unavailable in France, nor that you would be unable to access adequate care. Accordingly, the assertion that your condition would go untreated or deteriorate due to lack of access is not accepted.”

“When assessing whether your concluded trafficking status prevents removal to France, the Secretary of State again refers to the CIN, which confirms that France operates dual trafficking-identification systems through both state and NGO pathways. Crucially, NGO identification is described as an “essential” element of victim protection and does not depend on French criminal jurisdiction or police cooperation. Victims trafficked outside France are routinely recognised: in 2024, 21% of trafficking victims supported in France had been exploited exclusively abroad, demonstrating that extra-territorial trafficking is not a barrier to identification or support. Victims may access secure accommodation, relocation and multi-agency support through the state-funded Ac.Sé network, as well as specialist NGO shelters such as AFJ Jorbalan and CCEM. None of these protections require a French criminal investigation or that the exploitation fall within French territorial jurisdiction. Taken together, the latest CIN demonstrates that, upon return, you would enter an asylum system specifically designed to identify vulnerabilities, provide material support, ensure healthcare and mental-health access, supply interpreter assistance, and protect victims of trafficking—including those exploited abroad. Your NRM outcome and the VTS refusal have been fully taken into account, but they do not establish that you would face a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR in France or that removal would be unlawful. On this basis, your individual circumstances do not demonstrate that you personally would be exposed to inhuman or degrading treatment on return.”

“a systemic failure or a real risk that you personally would be denied essential services to an Article 3 standard. You have not demonstrated that the care you require including psychological therapy is unavailable in France or that the health system is unwilling or unable to meet the needs of vulnerable applicants. The objective evidence does not indicate that asylum seekers face barriers so severe that they cannot obtain necessary medical treatment. Therefore, it is not accepted that your medical circumstances amount to exceptional circumstances preventing your removal to France or that they create a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR.”

“The reconsiderations policy for negative Reasonable and Conclusive Grounds has been updated and is applicable from 8:20pm 17 September 2025. As your client has received a negative decision and is due to be removed to a country that is a signatory to ECAT and ECHR, they are not eligible to have their decision reconsidered under the reconsideration policy. ECAT and ECHR signatory countries are assessed to be safe and have relevant duties to prohibit modern slavery and trafficking.”

“As an NRM referral and decision have previously been completed in relation to your client, and the newly submitted information concerns incidents predating the NRM referral noted above, this matter falls within the scope of the reconsideration process.”

“It has been considered that after the smugglers took you to Sudan, they demanded payment from you in Ethiopia and in turn, they tortured you and sexually assaulted you. Although you may have been a victim of a violent and serious crime, and the severity and trauma of such a crime are duly acknowledged, the crime you were subjected to is indicative of isolated events and is therefore dissimilar to the definition of sexual exploitation as per the statutory framework. This is largely due to the fact that your account indicates you were subjected to an isolated, opportunistic crimes perpetrated by smugglers. While these factors are serious and taken into account there is no evidence that shows the offender groomed you, or profited monetarily, socially, or politically from this offence. Nor were there patterns or trends that indicate you were monetarily, trafficked with the sole purpose of being sexually exploited.”

“Where it appears that the outcome of the Reasonable Grounds decision making process may be negative as the result of an incomplete referral, the relevant competent authority must consider whether to request more information from the First Responder or other sources, and give them a reasonable opportunity to provide any further information before taking the decision.”

“While it has been taken into account that you were suffering from sleep deprivation and malnutrition at the time of your Asylum Screening Interview, a reason such as issues with the interpreter is not deemed sufficient to explain why you had given completely different accounts in relation to the inconsistency above, and simply indicating the correct account also fails to provide a reasonable justification. It is noted that in your screening interview, you confirmed that you had understood all of the questions asked. Further, it is noted that part of your SI was conducted in English, and your MLR was done in English, with occasional use of an interpreter. It is therefore considered that you were not solely reliant on the interpreter, and this is therefore not a sufficient explanation for this inconsistency. Therefore, as the location of where you worked in Libya, the duration of your work and the duration of your stay at the compound are considered core to your exploitation claim, significant weight has been applied to this inconsistency and your credibility has been damaged to the point that your entire account cannot be believed. In addition, in your Asylum Screening Interview Q. 2.5 dated 06/08/2025, in your Detention Induction Record Q. 23 you stated that you have never been exploited, nor you have had any reason to believe you were going to be exploited. . . . Whilst it is deemed reasonable that you might have not understood what 'modern slavery' meant at the time of your Screening Interview and Detention Induction Record, looking at the timeline of your entire case, the fact that you raised your NRM claim only after speaking to your Legal Representative and having been served with a Notice of Intent dated 09/08/2025, damages the credibility of your claim.”

“looking at the available medical evidence, while it is acknowledged that you have experienced difficulties, the evidence does not suggest that your memory has been cognitively impaired to the extent of not being able to give a coherent narrative, nor does it explain why you have provided contradictory accounts regarding the core aspects of your claim. It is considered that there are no mitigating circumstances in your case to explain why you have given contradictory accounts within your claim.”

“In summary, the information that is considered to support your case is the wider external evidence noted in the United States of America Department of State Trafficking in Persons Report for Ethiopia, Sudan, Libya, Italy and France of 2025, which notes that trafficking does occur. The information that is considered to go against your case is in the inconsistencies outlined above. Looking at the available evidence in the round of your case, it is considered that whilst there is some information that supports your account, looking at all the pieces of information cumulatively, the credibility issues outweigh the evidence in support of your account. As such, it is not considered that you have met the required evidentiary standard. In regard to incident 3. Due to the inconsistencies in your account, your credibility has been damaged to the extent that your claim to have been trafficked cannot be believed applying the standard of proof 'on the balance of probabilities' and is consequently rejected. In regard to incident 1 and 2. Whilst your account is not accepted for the reasons outlined above, even if your account were to be accepted, as outlined below, it is not considered that these events constitute modern slavery (human trafficking and or slavery, servitude or forced / compulsory labour).”

“As is made clear in Mibanga, what is required is a single process in which the decision maker assesses the credibility of the core account given by the putative victim. In doing so it will be necessary to take into account features which potentially call their credibility into question, such as incoherence, inconsistency or delay, alongside factors which may explain those features.”

“Looking at the available evidence in the round of your case, it is considered that whilst there is some information that supports your account, looking at all the pieces of information cumulatively, the credibility issues outweigh the evidence in support of your account. As such, it is not considered that you have met the required evidentiary standard.”

“The outcome of your National Referral Mechanism (NRM) referral concluded that you do not meet the required threshold for Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking. You received a Negative Conclusive Grounds decision documenting the details for this on 27 October 2025. Your case was deemed negative on grounds of credibility. Due to inconsistencies in your accounts, your credibility was damaged to the point that your entire account could not be believed.”

“For the reasons above it is considered that your claim cannot succeed on any legitimate view and any immigration judge, properly directing him or herself and applying the law to the facts and the same evidence, would inevitably conclude the same. Therefore, your claim that your removal from the UK would be unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 is wholly lacking in substance and any appeal would be bound to fail.”

“It is also considered that your rights under Article 8 would not be breached by your removal from the UK to France. You have provided no evidence to suggest that your mental health is such that removal from the UK would interfere with your Article 8 rights, and in any case, removal would be both necessary and proportionate given the significant public interest in maintaining fair and effective immigration control. Therefore, an Article 8 claim on medical grounds is also bound to fail.”

“By exploitation we mean things like being forced into prostitution or other forms of sexual exploitation, being forced to carry out work, or forced to commit a crime. Have you ever been exploited or reason to believe you were going to be exploited?”

“You have given a limited level of detail in relation to your exploitation claim in Sudan and it is considered reasonable to expect a higher level of detail. Especially, as your claimed exploitation happened not so long ago, that is from 15/04/2025 to 30/05/2025, and occurred over a significant period of time, as much as 6 weeks or so.”

“As you have received a negative decision and are due to be removed to a country that is a signatory to ECAT and ECHR, you are not eligible to have your decision reconsidered under the reconsideration policy. ECAT and ECHR signatory countries are assessed to be safe and have relevant duties to prohibit modem slavery and trafficking.”

“Having considered the Medico-Legal Report (MLR) dated 28 October 2025 and authored by Dr M D Kamara, the Reasonable Grounds decision correctly accepted that you meet the ICD-11 criteria for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and depression. However, the decision proceeds to state that ‘no documentation has been provided to show that you have a confirmed diagnosis for either condition’. It is acknowledged that this latter statement is factually incorrect in light of the MLR. Notwithstanding the above, this error does not change the overall decision for the following reasons highlighted below. Whilst the IECA accepts that inclusion of the above referenced statement had been done so in error, the additional information when taken with all the available evidence already considered, does not demonstrate that there are reasonable grounds to believe that you are a victim of modern slavery and does not make a material difference to the outcome of the Reasonable Grounds decision. Within the Reasonable Grounds decision dated 03 November 2025, the IECA identified a significant number of inconsistencies within your account. These inconsistencies concern contradictory information regarding: the circumstances in which you travelled to Mellit; the nature of your brother’s injuries; the start date of your claimed exploitation, the location of your detention during this time; whether or not you were arrested and sent to prison; the timeline provided and route of travel as well as the method of transit. You also answered ‘no’ on multiple occasions when asked if you had ever been exploited. You did not raise your account of exploitation at the earliest opportunity and did so only once removal action was brought against you. Within the MLR dated 28 October 2025, the author notes that they believe your memory is poor (7.19). However, as part of their findings and insight, the author provides: “[GIP] demonstrated logical and coherent thinking, with no evidence of a formal thought disorder. I found no evidence of delusional beliefs, or other psychotic features. (7.13) … I did not objectively assess cognition, but I noted good engagement with the consultation, and coherent, relevant answers to questions. There was no overt confusion, and a good grasp of my role, and of chronology. (7.18) … Clinically it is likely that external circumstances will affect [GIP’s] ability to give a detailed chronological account. I noted that his own account to me was chronological and relatively detailed- for example he remembered many place names along the route of his journey… (11.5)”

“could raise any claim that you would face a risk of re-trafficking if returned to Sudan as part of your asylum claim in France, and that this would be considered by the French authorities. As confirmed at paragraph 31 of the inadmissibility decision of 21 October 2025, you did not submit any representations regarding the risk of a breach of your rights under Article 3 of the ECHR in France by onward refoulement to Sudan (or anywhere else) and in the absence of you having shown otherwise, France is treated as a safe country for you in this context. Consequently, there is no basis on which a properly directed Immigration Judge could find that there was a real risk that you would be sent back to Sudan to face a real risk of re-trafficking there. France has a functioning asylum system which will consider your claim that you face such a risk and would not remove you to Sudan if it found such a risk to be established.”

“Consideration has been given to how you were referred into the NRM and the timing of the claim. You have provided an account in where you state that you were exploited in Libya between 2023 and 2025. In your Screening Interview (SI) dated 13/08/2025, you have the opportunity to raise the claim of exploitation in Q2.5, yet you state that have never been exploited, you the outline the journey to the UK and include staying in Libya for 2 years, but you do not raise a claim of exploitation. In your Detention Engagement Team Induction (DET) dated 15/08/2025, you are asked if you have ever been subject to exploitation and like your previous answer in the SI, you confirm that you were not a victim of exploitation and do not raise a claim of modern slavery. The SI and DET were both carried out with interpreters in the interview, to ensure that you understood the questions being asked. It is also noted that on 28/08/2025 your Legal Representatives (LR) submitted an NRM request, but this was cancelled on 30/08/2025, when you stated, 'you believed that the Home Office are responsible and forced you into being a victim of modern slavery'. Your LRs then submitted some Further Submissions (FS) dated 01/09/2025, where there is a basic overview of an exploitational incident. On 03/09/2025 your LRs submitted an NRM request, but this cancelled on 07/09/2025, due to not being a victim of exploitation. You are subsequently referred into the NRM on 20/09/2025, where you gave your account of the exploitation. It is also noted that in your Rule 35 Medical Report (R35) dated 22/09/2025, that you add additional detail regarding the exploitation, that was never mentioned previously, regarding the injuries you sustained.”

“a limited level of detail. The account you have provided is notably lacking in fundamental details. It does not include information that would be reasonably expected when recounting such an experience. You gave basic details of one of the exploiters, brief details about how the exploitation started, and the conditions in which you were kept in. You have provided a limited description of what you were required to do. However, you offered no explanation for why you could not provide some details but not others.”

“Whilst your Rule 35 report records that you described nightmares and flashbacks, you have not provided compelling medical evidence to suggest that your physical or mental health conditions could result in a serious, rapid and irreversible decline in your state of health resulting in intense suffering, or a significant reduction in intense suffering, or a significant reduction in life expectancy as a result of the absence or lack of access to appropriate treatment. Even if your physical and mental health were to deteriorate, as outlined above, appropriate treatment will be available in France, free of charge, should you require it. Your Rule 35 report also suggests you are on anti-depressant medication ; this will also be available to you in France.”

“not arguable that you would be returned to France to face a real risk of inhuman and degrading treatment, or torture, based on your health conditions . . . The assessments made by Dr Shyangdan and Dr Kamara fail to demonstrate that you require treatment to prevent intense suffering or a substantial reduction in your life expectancy and that treatment is either not available or not accessible in France.”

“Although you have stated that you are still awaiting a medical appointment, you have not provided any evidence to demonstrate that you have been denied access to medical care. Your social worker has told you that you will need to wait for your appointment and that you have the opportunity to repeat your request at the CADA’s office. It is not considered that it would be unreasonable for you to wait for your appointment to access healthcare or that it would be unreasonable to expect you to travel by bus for 20 minutes to access any services that you may require. It is noted that access to NHS England mental health services in the UK may also involve wait times, therefore, it is not considered that you are at any disadvantage in France, as you would potentially experience delays in accessing treatment if you were to attempt to access this in the UK. Whilst it is considered that you may have experienced some delay in accessing treatment, you have provided no evidence which indicates that you have been denied access to healthcare or that you are currently in need of any urgent medical care. As highlighted within the CIN, should you consider that you require urgent care, you would be able to access this via a hospital”

“The Secretary of State recognises that criminal investigation in France into trafficking offences is limited to those cases in which the alleged trafficking took place into or within France and/or in which either victims or perpetrators were French nationals. However, the Secretary of State notes that, in practical terms, through the various mechanisms available in France, you are receiving both housing and medical assistance, and therefore are receiving appropriate support. The Secretary of State highlights again her own conclusion that you are not, in any event, a victim of trafficking. . . . Although you have provided evidence which concludes that you have medical conditions, as highlighted above, these can be managed via the healthcare system in France. You have been provided with accommodation in France. You have provided no evidence to demonstrate that you require specialised trafficking support that could not be, and is not being, provided in France in relation to your claim that you are a victim of trafficking.”

“Please provide all internal instructions, template decision letters, training material, internal communications (including both within the Home Office and between the Home Office and Ministers / special advisors), and standard operating procedures that concern the consideration and approach to reconsideration requests following the above-mentioned policy change.”

“A copy of the instruction that went out to IECA staff was disclosed on 8 April 2026 to all Claimants in the lead litigation. There are no other internal instructions, guidance or policies on the approach to reconsideration requests following the noted policy change. The approach to the application of paragraph 14.216 of the Modern Slavery Guidance is detailed in the witness statement of Daniel Hobbs dated 27 March 2026.”

“Following consideration of the arguments made in the PAP letter, the response of 28 October 2025 confirmed that the negative Reasonable Grounds decision of 24 September 2025 was maintained. There are not currently reasonable grounds to conclude you are a victim of modern slavery.”

“You have said that you were a victim of modern slavery outside France. The Secretary of State’s position is that you are not a victim of trafficking as the IECA has investigated your claim and assessed that your account does not meet the required threshold. The outcome of your NRM referral concluded that there are no Reasonable Grounds for believing that you are a victim of modern slavery, and substantial weight is given to this conclusion. Your healthcare needs (either in your capacity as a victim of trafficking or otherwise) can be managed via the healthcare system in France and you have been provided with accommodation. Therefore, the Secretary of State is satisfied that removal to France will not interfere with your rights including under Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights given the support which is available in France.”