The Court of Appeal heard the Home Secretary's appeal against a decision allowing Kamran Safi's Article 2 and 3 appeal against deportation to Afghanistan, a case relevant to people facing deportation.
Key facts
- Who: People facing deportation to Afghanistan who rely on Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and their representatives
- From: Judgment of 20 February 2026
- Source: Kamran Safi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 149
In [2026] EWCA Civ 149, dated 20 February 2026, the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) considered an appeal by the Secretary of State for the Home Department against a First-tier Tribunal decision. That decision allowed Mr Safi's appeal against deportation to Afghanistan on Article 2 and Article 3 ECHR grounds. The Upper Tribunal had upheld it. Lord Justice Bean gave the judgment; Lord Justice Peter Jackson and Lady Justice Asplin also sat.
Background
Mr Safi is an Afghan citizen born on 1 February 1997. His father, who worked for the Afghan army, was murdered in 2008. He arrived in the UK as a child and claimed asylum. That claim was refused, but he was granted three years' discretionary leave to remain as an asylum-seeking child. In 2013 he learned that his mother and sister had died.
He claims he was a victim of childhood trafficking and modern slavery, including sexual abuse, on his journey to the UK. He has been diagnosed with complex post-traumatic stress disorder and mild depression.
On 15 January 2016 he was convicted at Croydon Crown Court of aggravated burglary and theft from a person and sentenced to six years and six months' detention in a Young Offender's Institution. The Home Secretary made a deportation order on 2 April 2019 and rejected his human rights claims. Further submissions about a risk from the Taliban, because of his father's army service, were refused on 31 May 2019 as not amounting to a fresh claim.
The question on appeal
The First-tier Tribunal allowed the appeal on Article 2 and 3 grounds. It found him vulnerable because of his mild depressive disorder and PTSD, and found a risk of re-trafficking that would breach Article 3, relying on a Single Competent Authority conclusive grounds decision and expert evidence.
The Home Secretary argued that the tribunal:
- relied on general conditions in Afghanistan without explaining why Mr Safi was personally at risk;
- treated poverty as if it were destitution, when the Article 3 threshold is high;
- gave no reasons why he faced re-trafficking as an adult, given that the trafficking decision referred to events dating from no later than 2015;
- made no explicit findings on "Westernisation", and did not refer to the part of the Home Office country policy guidance saying each case must be considered on its facts, with the onus on the person to show real risk.
Mr Safi argued that the grounds disclosed no error of law and amounted to disagreement with the tribunal's findings. He said the tribunal considered his particular circumstances, including his health, his history as a victim of trafficking, his lack of family support, Westernisation and publicity about his offending, alongside the general conditions in Afghanistan. He also said the expert evidence he relied on was unchallenged, so the tribunal did not need to explain in detail why it was accepted.
What this means for people facing deportation
The arguments in this case show how Article 2 and 3 claims to resist removal to Afghanistan can be put and contested. Expert reports, medical evidence and a trafficking decision all featured in the tribunal's findings and in the submissions on appeal. The parties disagreed about whether the tribunal had properly tied its conclusions to Mr Safi's own circumstances rather than to general conditions.
Sources
- Kamran Safi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 149, Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 20 February 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2026/149