Case No. UKUT-00226-(IAC)

) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 1469 and [2014] Imm AR 513 . Before turning to consider this decision in a little detail, it is appropriate to highlight two features of SHL . First, the Appellant was attempting to mount a direct, frontal challenge to the negative trafficking decision of the Authority. Second, the Secretary of State’s policy guidance did not feature in the matrix of the appeal. The Tribunal considered that this was not legally possible. (37) In AS ( Afghanistan ), Longmore LJ formulated the issue to be addressed in the following terms, at [1]: “ The question in this appeal is the extent to which (if at all) Judges of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber should regard as conclusive decisions of the ‘Competent Authority’ determining that an appellant before them has or has not been a victim of trafficking. ” There were two decisions in the matrix. The first was the Secretary of State’s decision rejecting the Appellant’s asylum claim. The second was the decision of the A uthority that the Appellant was not the victim of human trafficking. The Appellant challenged the asylum refusal decision by appeal to the FtT. The appeal was dismissed. On further appeal to the Upper Tribunal, the question arose whether the FtT had erred in law by failing to make a finding on the trafficking issue. It was held that the FtT “ ….had no jurisdiction to review the trafficking decision of the UKBA ”: see [9]. No error of law was demonstrated and the appeal was dismissed. (38) At [11], Longmore LJ records his acceptance of the Respondent’s submission th at a decision of the A uthority is not an immigration decision (within the meaning of the applicable legislation): “ …. and the only remedy … was by way of judicial review ”. However, the Court ruled that in immigration appeals the Tribunal is competent to take into account a positive trafficking decision where relevant to the decision under appeal (normally a removal decision). Longmore LJ continues, at [14]: “ If the First tier Tribunal is entitled to take into account a decision that an appellant is (or has been) a victim of trafficking it seems odd that ,