A man from Yate has said that his foster son has "lost heart" after being told he would have to leave the country after an unsuccessful appeal at High Court.
John Stokes has said that his foster son Samet is feeling very dejected after being told their fresh claim to keep him the country was not successful.
Samet arrived in the country after being illegally trafficked at the age of 15 from Albania.
Speaking to ITV West Country John said that the support his family had received during their campaign, which has now lasted over two years, was "keeping them going" despite the latest setback.
"We have had massive support from so many people but we have not got any further," John said.
"I think there is a real feel good factor about this case and people are happy to get behind a young man. Nobody is against him.
"It is really good to see and we are trying to stay positive.
"We had a really good case but after the ruling we now go back to the Home Office."
In Albania, Samet was forced to beg on the streets from the age of 11. He was eventually trafficked into Britain by Albanian gangs.
After escaping, he was taken into care in Bristol, speaking barely any English. Since then John said that Samet had transformed his life and was fulfilling his dream of becoming a carpenter.
He studied at SGS College and was even nominated as student of the year before the most recent rejection in court.
John and Samet have received huge amounts of support on social media with over 420,000 signing his petition to help the teenager continue his life in the UK.
The pair are now appealing to the Home Office to drop the case claiming that Samet's safety would be at risk if he were to go back to his country of birth.
"Samet has severe PTSD and our case and belief is that it would not be safe for him to return to Albania," he said.
"If he gets sent back he will be tracked down and trafficked again, without doubt.
"This appeal is going to be a minimum of around £4000. I think we have spent in the region £14,000 already."
The Home Office have said that they "do not routinely comment on individual cases."