A man recognised as a victim of trafficking has been deported to Albania and cannot return to the UK, after the Court of Appeal ruled that the Home Office acted lawfully in certifying his asylum claim.

The case is R (on the application of MB) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 1132. The court held that the Home Office was entitled to certify the claim — a step that removes access to the normal asylum process and prevents an in-country appeal — even though the applicant had previously been recognised as a trafficking victim.

What the court decided

The core question before the Court of Appeal was narrow: does a past trafficking finding, on its own, make it unlawful for the Home Office to certify an asylum claim? The court answered no. A prior recognition as a victim of trafficking does not automatically bar certification of a later asylum claim.

Certification under the UK asylum system carries serious procedural consequences. It strips the applicant of the right to appeal from within the UK before removal. The applicant must instead pursue any appeal from abroad. In this case, the certification led directly to the man's deportation to Albania.

Who is affected

The judgment matters for two groups. First, foreign nationals who have been recognised as victims of trafficking through the UK's victim identification process and who later claim asylum. Second, Albanian nationals and others from countries the Home Office treats as producing clearly unfounded claims, where certification powers are most often used.

For these applicants, the ruling confirms an uncomfortable practical position. A trafficking recognition does not guarantee that a subsequent asylum claim will receive full in-country consideration. The Home Office can still assess the claim as certifiable and remove the applicant first.

What changes in practice

Nothing in the statutory framework changed with this judgment. What changed is the clarity around how existing powers operate. The court has confirmed that trafficking status and asylum certification are treated as distinct issues. A positive trafficking finding addresses whether the person was exploited. Certification addresses whether the asylum claim itself is clearly unfounded.

That separation means claimants and their representatives cannot assume that a trafficking recognition will shield an asylum claim from certification. Each decision stands on its own evidence and its own legal test.

The result for the applicant

The man in this case remains in Albania. His deportation stands. The Court of Appeal found the certification was legally sound, and he is unable to return to the UK to pursue his claim from within the country.

Where to follow the case

The full judgment, R (on the application of MB) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 1132, is available through the official court judgment records. Readers tracking how UK courts balance trafficking protections against certification powers should review the judgment text directly, as this report summarises the case outcome only and does not constitute legal advice for any individual claim.