Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Appeal No: PA/12627/2019

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 12 May 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RINTOUL

Between

IG
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Haddow, instructed by Gray & Co Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr Mullen, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Melville Street, Edinburgh on 9 April 2024 (preliminary issue)
and on 17 December 2024

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008,[the appellant is granted anonymity.

No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the appellant, likely to lead members of the public to identify the appellant. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant appeals with permission against a decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge McGrade, promulgated on 7 April 2021, dismissing his appeal on asylum and human rights grounds. The Secretary of State also cross-appeals against that decision. The issue of the appellant’s nationality was dealt with as a preliminary matter following a hearing on 9 April 2024. Although I issued a decision on that matter, I have incorporated that decision into this decision.
Anonymity
2. I have anonymised the appellant as this is a protection claim, and as I am satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to do so. I am also satisfied that given the difficulties that the expert witness would face that it is interests of justice to anonymise him also, at his request.
The Appellant’s Case
3. The appellant’s case is that he is a citizen of Togo where he was born and lived for most of his life. He was a member of the Party National Pan-African (“PNP”) and was close friends with the party chairman. He attended demonstrations, was arrested and beaten as a result of his involvement with the PNP and then escaped to Ghana where he continued to be politically active. He was attacked whilst living there and therefore fled to the United Kingdom. His case is that he will be ill-treated should he be returned to Togo because of his political opinion. The Secretary of State’s case is that the appellant is not a citizen of Togo but is instead a citizen of Niger. That conclusion is on the basis of a business visa obtained by the appellant to travel to the United Kingdom endorsed on a passport issued by Niger but giving a different date of birth, 17 March 1985 whereas he says his date of birth is 17 March 1991.
4. Checks undertaken by the respondent revealed, in his opinion, that the Niger passport used to obtain the British visa had been used to apply for a US visa around 4 October 2016. Fingerprints taken in connection with both applications, for the US visa and the UK visa, match the appellant’s fingerprints taken in the United Kingdom.
The Appeal Before the First-tier Tribunal
5. The judge heard evidence from the appellant. The judge found [21] that the appellant had provided a detailed and reasonably convincing account of circumstances that caused him to flee Togo and led him to flee Ghana for the United Kingdom. The judge noted [22] the respondent’s position that the appellant’s account should be rejected in its entirety as his denial of being a citizen of Niger undermined his credibility to such extent that his version of events should be rejected. The judge accepted that he was living in Togo and his account of how he came to travel to the United Kingdom and that he had been involved in the activities of the PNP; was arrested and detained; took part in a demonstration in which he was injured on 16 October 2017; fled to Ghana; and, fled Ghana following an incident related to activities in Togo.
6. The judge then turned to the issue of whether the appellant was a citizen of Togo [23], that he was a citizen of Niger, that no information had been presented to him that he could not avail himself of the protection of Niger.
7. The judge stated at [26] as follows:-
“I accept it is conceivable that a forged passport was obtained for the appellant while he was in Ghana and that it was this passport on which the appellant tried to travel to the United Kingdom. However, the respondent has also indicated that the US authorities have a record of the appellant applying for a visa using the same passport details provided by the appellant for the business visa which he used to enter the United Kingdom. The fingerprints also match. As this application relates to the appellant, the particular difficulty he faces is that the records held by the US authorities indicate that this application was submitted on 4 October 2016. It is the appellant’s position that he knows nothing of this application. The only additional information that he is able to provide is that the passport that was provided to him by the agent was very worn, which makes him believe it had been used before. However, this does not explain the matching fingerprints. On the appellant’s account, he was living without difficulty in Togo in 2016 and had not yet fled to Ghana. It was only when he had fled to Ghana in late 2017 that his photograph and fingerprints were taken. There is therefore no explanation before me as to why the appellant’s fingerprints appear in a visa application that was presented to the US authorities in 2016”.
8. The judge found that the appellant is a citizen of Niger [28]. This was information he had provided at the screening interview and did not correct when corrections were submitted at a later date. The judge accepted that the appellant faced a real risk of persecution in Togo but that he could avail himself of the protection of Niger.
9. The appellant sought permission to appeal that decision on the grounds that:
(a) The judge failed to recognise or explain a fundamental contradiction in the documentary evidence whereby he had provided extensive documentary evidence including birth certificates for him and his parents indicative that he is of Togolese nationality born to Togolese parents yet the Nigerien nationality gave a different birth date and place and the conclusion was not rational as either the appellant had participated in sophisticated fraud to produce the documentary evidence on which he relied or the information set out in the passport is fraudulent.
(b) The judge’s reliance on an apparent discrepancy between the appellant’s screening interview where he is recorded as answering questions about other nationalities saying that his mother is from Niger was in fact clarified in his statement that his stepmother is from Nigeria and in any event the evidence on this point was misrecorded.
10. On 10 June 2021 Upper Tribunal Judge Canavan granted permission to appeal.
11. On 18 June 2021 in a letter sent pursuant to Rule 24, the respondent sought to cross-appeal the findings at paragraphs 22 and 28 of the appeal that the appellant faced a real risk of persecution in Togo.
Proceedings Before the Upper Tribunal – 9 December 2021
12. The matter than came before the Upper Tribunal sitting in Edinburgh on 9 December 2021. The panel, Vice President Ockelton and Upper Tribunal Judge Macleman, heard submissions from Mr Haddow on behalf of the appellant and Mr Diwnycz for the respondent directing that the Secretary of State wished to investigate the process for making enquiries to the government of Niger about the passport issued in the appellant’s name and for the matter to be then relisted.
13. The appeal then came before the same panel on 30 June 2022. The panel then said this:
“3. With the consent of the parties we treat the directions hearing as the hearing of the appeal to the Upper Tribunal. We have considered the grounds of appeal. Ground 2 relates to the First-tier Tribunal Judge’s apparent failure to take into account some evidence about the appellant’s mother and her background. We are persuaded that that ground is made out. The First-tier Tribunal Judge erred in his approach to that evidence”.
14. The panel then directed that the appellant’s nationality be determined as a preliminary issue. The appeal then came before me at a Case Management hearing on 28 November 2022 with further directions to be given pursuant to an application given by the appellant with respect primarily to making material relating to fingerprints and identification.
15. The respondent did not comply with directions and there was a further Case Management Review on 11 October 2023 at which I gave further directions. By that point the Secretary of State had provided an expert report regarding the appellant’s fingerprints and permission was granted to allow the appellant to instruct an expert to examine the fingerprints and provide a report. Directions were also given for a legible copy of the application for entry clearance which is said was made by the appellant in Abuja, Nigeria and copies of supporting documentation and a copy of any landing card it is said he used on arrival from Morocco.
16. Further extensions of time were needed in order for a compliance with these documents and the matter then came before me on 9 April 2024.
17. In addition, it is of note that on 9 October 2023 the appellant made an application for costs to which the respondent provided a reply.
The Hearing on 9 April 2024 – Preliminary Issue
18. I heard evidence from the appellant and submissions from both representatives. In addition, I had a consolidated bundle prepared by the appellant’s solicitors, the bundles before the First-tier Tribunal and material supplied by the Home Office including an email from 14 December 2023 explaining that there is no longer a copy of any landing card available of the appellant.
19. The appellant gave evidence in French with the assistance of a court interpreter.
20. He adopted his most recent witness statement adding he always told the truth in the statements he had given to the Secretary of State and his solicitors since his arrival. Shown photographs of children he pointed out where he appeared in the photographs. Asked about the apprenticeship document he explained that it contained his signature and that of Idrissa Cambo, who was the manager of a garage. He said he obtained these documents as he had called home and they had been in his father’s possession. He identified also in the bundle the envelope in which they had been sent. He said that the school photographs came from a school in Sokode, in Togo.
21. In cross-examination the appellant said he did not know who had written the year of which class it was which had been photographed. He was asked if he accepted that his fingerprints appear to be shown in a UK visa application. He said that he was aware of that; that he arrived through an agent who had taken his fingerprints. He was shown his witness statement (page 150, paragraph 8).
22. At paragraph 8 he said this:
“Once again, I will explain that I did not independently apply for any visa prior to coming to the United Kingdom. I did not deliberately make any application for a US visa however I do note that my fingerprints were matched to an application. I have no explanation for how this happened and can only assume that the agent did this as part of the process to allow me to leave Ghana and escape my problems in Togo”.
23. He said that the fingerprints had been taken by the agent who had asked him to come here. He said he had not made a US application personally, he did not know how this had happened.
24. The appellant said that the agent took his fingerprints in Ghana in 2017. He confirmed (witness statement, page 146, paragraph 12) that it was “John” who took his fingerprints during his stay in Ghana. He said that he had arrived there on 18 October 2017. He said he had been in Ghana for six to seven months before he met John and the fingerprints had been taken just before leaving. He had been in Ghana for about nine months. He said John took his fingerprints. He said that it was the attack in July 2018 prompted him. to leave Ghana and that the fingerprints were taken before that attack. He said that the fingerprints had not been taken at any other time before 2018. Asked to explain how the Home Office said the US visa application had been made on 4 October 2016 he said he was told that but did not know how it happened and could not explain this.
25. In response to my questions, seeking clarification of the sequence of events in Ghana, the appellant said that he had met John approximately two months before leaving. He confirmed that it was John who took the fingerprints. I asked him how he could explain how this appeared to be after the UK visa application had been made. He said he did not know how it happened and all he knew is that John had taken the fingerprints.
26. In response to questions from Mr Haddow, it was put to the appellant that he might have been wrong and the fingerprints might have been taken earlier. He said that he could say that and did not remember.
27. With the agreement of Mr Haddow, the submissions from both parties were not interpreted to the appellant.
28. Mr Mullen relied on the refusal letter submitting that on the appellant’s evidence, his fingerprints had been taken in 2018 after both the applications for a UK visa and a US visa had been made which was not possible. There was simply no credible explanation for how the fingerprints had been linked. He submitted that the evidence pointed towards him being a citizen of Niger not Togo.
29. Mr Mullen submitted also that the documents relied upon to show that he was from Togo did not bear any security features and that some of the documents had been obtained after the allegation as to his nationality had been made. He submitted that the documents from Togo were not reliable and that the expert report on handwriting and passport was not conclusive.
30. Mr Haddow submitted that it was necessary to decide whether the appellant is a national of Niger. He accepted the appellant needed to rebut the evidence contained in the passport but that the evidence was still on the respondent to show that the appellant is a citizen of Niger. He submitted that on the lower standard the appellant had shown that he is a citizen of Togo.
31. Mr Haddow submitted that given the conflict in the evidence the appellant could not be a dual national. He submitted that there was a strong, consistent body of evidence to demonstrate that he is a citizen of Togo despite the issues of credibility and that although there may be some difficulties over the passport and the fingerprints it did not mean that he should be disbelieved in everything. He pointed to an inconsistency about his parents, place of birth and that the appellant had been able in interview (page 51) to answer quite an extensive set of questions about his origin and Togo. In addition to the appellant’s certificate of nationality which had been obtained by the Togolese authorities by his father it is sufficient to say that he is a citizen of Togo. Mr Haddow submitted that it was in reality more likely than not that the appellant’s Nigerien passport had been obtained by deception and contained information which was neither false nor reliable.
The hearing on 17 December 2024
32. I heard evidence from the appellant who gave evidence through an interpreter. I also heard evidence from an expert witness, TM, in addiction, had a consolidated bundle including an expert report from TM. In addition, I had an update from the expert witness and skeleton arguments from both representatives.
33. The appellant said that he did not recall being asked in his screening interview if he had been fingerprinted in Togo, but, accepted that he did recall that he had been fingerprinted for an ID in Togo, but could not recall when this was. He said it was for an ID card and it had been issued. He no longer had the card and could not recall when he had lost it nor had he applied to replace it. He thought that he could not go to the Togolese Embassy as he is seeking asylum in the United Kingdom and he had not given thought to having it replaced.
34. He confirmed that he still had no knowledge about how the Niger passport came into existence. Asked about the photograph of a notice board in which a wanted notice relating to him appeared, that he was not sure how the people who had given the photograph. He said his family had obtained it from his party headquarters but did not know how they had got possession of it. He was unaware that there were any further wanted notices or summonses issued since 2018.
35. I then heard evidence from TM who said that in his experience the Niger Embassy, either in Brussels or Paris, would be sceptical if presented with an old passport. He referred to the procedures for the issue of a passport or travel document which had been publicly announced, which required a number of documents including ID card, details of place of birth and so on. He concluded that there was no evidence that the appellant would be in a position to produce the relevant information.
36. TM also said though the official language in Niger is French, local languages are normally spoken and that the indigenous languages in Togo and Niger are very different. He thought also there had been confusion regarding his father’s second wife, it being highly plausible that she was in fact from Kano in Nigeria, not Niger and that the distinction between “Nigerien” and “Nigerian” is easily misunderstood, particularly when French is being used. He thought it was unlikely that the authorities in Niger would accept that he was a citizen of that country.
37. TM said although he was aware that a passport is prima facie evidence of nationality and that he had not seen any evidence of the appellant’s connection to Niger or documentation relating to that. Asked to comment on the reliability of the wanted notice, he said that it was quite possible it was genuine but he was not able to authenticate it. He said that the authorities would be bothered by low-level activists and that there had been confirmed cases of people detained for up to six years without trial, just for being accused as long ago as 2018, of grassroot activity. He said that the PNP was seen as a new type of political danger as it had arisen in the north of Togo, which the ruling party had seen as its fiefdom, thus was particularly trouble on that basis that had a wide grassroots support. He said it was quite feasible the appellant would be targeted.
38. He said it was difficult to rule out that the documents were genuine and that in low income African countries, official services did not always have access to the highest quality watermarked documents and that he had examined the appellant’s account as a whole, noting many aspects of apparently mundane details which added to the plausibility. He said that he knew nothing about the process of obtaining ID cards in Togo, but was aware that they were on the move towards a digitalised biometric system which he had noted by passing through immigration controls at the airport. He was unaware if it was possible to get replacement documents from abroad. He did not know if there was a computer system for logging wanted notices although such systems were becoming more widespread.
39. In response to my questions, TM said that he had no experience as to how the Secretary of State (as opposed to an appellant) would approach getting the document from Niger and accepted that it might be different when it was a state asking other states to assist. He did, however, thought the military government may have changed procedures.
40. In response to Mr Haddow’s question, TM said that there were difficulties in the relationship with UK and Niger and that although there was an embassy maintained in the United Kingdom, the focus was much more on cultural and humanitarian issues. He described the relationships as cool but correct.
41. Mr Mullen relied on his skeleton argument submitting that the appellant’s evidence was unconvincing but the circumstances which he came to have a copy of the arrest warrant. He submitted ultimately that the question was whether he had been properly issued with a passport from Niger, one which had been accepted by the US and UK authorities to be genuine. There was insufficient evidence to revisit the findings made on nationality and the expert appeared to be speculating as to what the Nigerian authorities would do. In respect of the cross appeal, he relied on the skeleton argument submitting that the appellant’s internally inconsistent account, submitting that there was an insufficient basis in the decision of the First-tier Tribunal for finding the appellant’s account entirely consistent and consistent with the background evidence. He submitted further that the possession of a national passport created the presumption that the holder is a national of the issuing state, which had not been properly addressed by the judge and the evidence as to being fingerprinted was inconsistent.
42. Mr Haddow adopted his skeleton argument submitting that the remaining issue is whether the appellant was resident in Togo and whether he had suffered ill-treatment at the hands of the regime. He submitted further that there was a risk that the appellant would not be accepted on return to Niger and thus might be refouled to Togo where he would be at risk. That basis argues that there would be in reality real obstacles to integration. He submitted that the documentary evidence was internally and externally consistent and there is a significant number of documentation covering an extended period indicating that the appellant had been present in Togo for a long time. He submitted further that the account of persecution in Togo is consistent and the only evidence was not the wanted notice; he had a PCP membership card and while the authenticity cannot be verified, they are simply part of the picture. There is an adequate explanation as to how the documents had been obtained.
43. Mr Haddow submitted further that there was evidence that the protestors from 2018 were still in prison in Togo and there was a risk he would be at risk there as per the expert report despite the passage of time. He submitted further that it was unlikely that there was a realistic prospect that the appellant would not be expected back given the history in this case of the Niger authorities willing to cooperate with the Home Office over the passport. He accepted that the difficulty of return would not be a sufficient reason for being a refugee but it was a point to be taken into account. He submitted further that the appellant might be suspected given the fact that he does not speak Hausa or other Nigerian language and that, looking at the evidence as a whole, there is a realistic chance that he would be persecuted in Niger or would be removed to Togo. On his evidence, he has no links there and could not establish himself there due to the current situation and thus there would be a risk to him on an Article 8 basis and also private life basis.
The Law
44. It is for the appellant to show, on the lower standard, that he has a well-founded fear of persecution in the country or countries of which he is a national; or, that to return him there would be in breach of the United Kingdom’s obligations pursuant to article 3 of the Human Rights Convention; or, that to do so would be in breach of his other rights under that convention, in particular Article 8 thereof.
45. The core issue in this case is whether the appellant is in fact a citizen of Niger. If he is, then it is for him to show why he cannot safely return there. As had been agreed, the issue of nationality was dealt with as a preliminary issue.
46. In Hussein and Another (Status of passports: foreign law) [2020] UKUT 250 (IAC), the Upper Tribunal stated:
1. A person who holds a genuine passport, apparently issued to him, and not falsified or altered, has to be regarded as a national of the State that issued the passport.
2. The burden of proving the contrary lies on the claimant in an asylum case.
3. Foreign law (including nationality law) is a matter of evidence, to be proved by expert evidence directed specifically to the point in issue.
47. Although my analysis of the evidence starts with nationality, and the Niger passport, I have considered the evidence as a whole in reaching my final conclusions.
48. It is now accepted that the appellant arrived in the United Kingdom using a passport issued by the government of Niger. The report of his own fingerprint expert confirms that four sets of fingerprints were compared, being those taken in connection with a USA visa application, the application for a business visit visa and two sets of the appellant’s fingerprints taken in the United Kingdom on 23 August 2018 and 25 August 2018. The opinion was that they all relate to the same person. It is not in dispute either that the passport used for the application for a UK visa was issued by the government of Niger on 1 October 2015. Despite attempts made by the Home Office to make enquiries of the Nigerien authorities about the passport, there was no response. In his screening interview, when asked if he had any other nationalities said (Q1.6) “my mother is from Niger”.
49. Subsequent to the screening interview, on 30 August 2018, the appellant’s solicitors wrote to the Home Office seeking to make amendments but none of these seek to clarify what he said at Q1.6.
50. In his asylum interview the appellant states consistently that he was born and lived in Togo until he left. He also names his wife as Bassaratou Hassane Bague born on 5 February 1993, that they married on 9 February 2013. He also gives the names of three children. The name of his wife is different to the Visa Application Form and only one child is mentioned – Salim born 6 October 2016 whereas two older children are named in the application form. The date of birth is different.
51. In his initial supporting statement dated 29 November 2018 the appellant said [7] that he was arrested in Togo on 25 August 2017 and [13] that he left Togo on 18 October 2017. He said he remained in Ghana until 6 August 2018.
52. The appellant also describes [14] that he was attacked on 3 August 2018 and then [15] that “I knew then it would not be safe so tried to arrange for me to leave Ghana”. He also said that the sone of a lady he met took a picture of him and took his fingerprints on a machine. He said that he did not hold the passport himself, it had been given to the agent.
53. In his interview, the appellant was asked about the currency [36ff]. Given that currency is also used in Niger as well as Togo, this is of limited evidential value. The appellant did, however, identify which countries neighbour Togo, its capital city, the name of the president and Independence celebrations but much of the other responses such as travel time between the capital, Lome and Kparatao, are somewhat vague as is the name of the closest hospital or medical centre. He said that the name of the school in his village was Kparatao Primary School. The title written on the photograph for the school year 95 to 96 is EPL le Salut de Sokode. If the appellant is correct, he would have been 5 years old at that point yet he says he went to Kparatao Primary School.
54. In the supplementary questions the appellant was asked about the arrangements for him to leave Ghana [27ff]. Asked about the name of the agent, he said that it was the woman who helped him when he was attacked whose son had left Italy and his name was Motala who took care of the agent. He was asked about the agent’s name [32] and said that he was “James Jackson”. It was this person James that he travelled with [39].
55. The appellant said [66] that he had never held a nationality other than Togolese and had never had a Niger passport nor had he ever held a UK visa. He did not know how the agent was able to bring him here and said that he had not applied for a UK entry visa on 2 February 2018. He said [77] that he had not attempted to enter the United Kingdom in 2016 despite the fingerprint records.
56. In a statement dated 21 October 2019 the appellant says that he has never used any other name and that his correct date of birth is 17 March 1991. He said he had never made an application to the USA, nor had he ever provided his fingerprints to support such an application nor had he held a Niger passport.
57. In his witness statement dated 9 September 2020, provided for the First-tier Tribunal appeal, the appellant says that he had not said that his mother is from Niger but that “my stepmother is from Nigeria”. Responding to the doubts as to his nationality, the appellant said the agent took his photograph, fingerprints and everything and [16] that he had never been to an embassy to have his fingerprints taken. He said that the passport he used was very worn and had a lot of stamps inside. He said:
“I believe that the agent prepared this and submitted my fingerprints into the system. I do not understand how these things work but it is his job. He came himself with a device that you put a thumb on first and it goes pink and you stop. You then put it on paper. He then did it with each finger”.
He also says [20] that the documents he had submitted with his preliminary questionnaire were originally posted from Togo and that he had provided proof of postage of these.
58. In his supplementary witness statement dated 27 January 2020 the appellant again confirms that the documents are original and at [20] that he did not dispute the photograph on the Niger passport is of him but everything was done by the agent.
59. In his witness statement of 22 February 2022, he gives more information about how his fingerprints were taken, this time them being taken by someone introduced to him only as “John”, he refers to his fingerprints being taken twice. It is clear from the initial witness statement at paragraph 15 that the agent was arranged after the attack in Ghana]. At [12] he said “By this time I met with Motala and John I had been in Ghana for around nine months as I was there for almost ten months and the process to leave took around one month”.
60. He also says that the photograph on the Nigerien passport is a photograph of him but the signature is not his.
61. Finally, in his witness statement of 2 April 2024 the appellant refers to the expert report on fingerprints. He said that he can only speculate as to how his fingerprints were used and what systems and processes the agent was able to go through to get him into the United Kingdom.
62. In assessing the appellant’s evidence, I have taken into account all material before me even if I do not specifically mention it. I bear in mind also that simply because an appellant has not told the truth in one aspect of his evidence it does not necessarily mean that he has not told the truth in respect of other parts of his evidence. There may well be reasons why he has not done so.
63. I start with the fingerprint evidence which links the appellant to the passport. Of equal importance is the timeline in which he says that the fingerprints were obtained and put onto a system. Looking at the evidence as a whole I find that it is evident that in his earlier evidence which was nearer to the events spoken of, the appellant said that his fingerprints were taken a significant period after he arrived in Ghana. He only changed his evidence to say he could not remember when the fingerprints were taken when confronted with the obvious inconsistency that his fingerprints must have been collected prior to the applications made to the American Embassy in 2016 and the British High Commission in February 2018, yet he referred to them having been taken well after that. I do not accept the appellant’s explanation for how the fingerprints were taken and used in visa applications. I find that this is not a peripheral matter, and undermines his credibility.
64. Whilst I accept that the handwriting expert’s evidence is that his signature and that which appears in the passport are not the same, I bear in mind that these samples would have been taken years apart. As was noted at [38] of the report there are similarities between the signatures as well as significant differences but the conclusion [40] is that:
The questioned signature does not appear to be a genuine exampled of [the appellant’s] signature. Due to the quality of the questioned signature [the passport] there is insufficient evidence to uniquely connect or excluded [the appellant] as the author of this writing.
65. It was also concluded that it was unlikely to be a simulation [41] or sufficient evidence to support or exclude the possibility that it was written with a view to deny. The overall conclusion is that the passport signature does not appear to be genuine.
66. This evidence must be compared with the fingerprint evidence which links the appellant to that passport in 2016 and again in 2018. I find that the fingerprint evidence is of greater probative value, given the views of both experts.
67. I accept that passports can be obtained by bribery, and I accept on the basis of the evidence before me that it is entirely possible to obtain a passport in Niger by bribery. But the fact remains that the fingerprints associated with that passport and associated with the applications made using that passport were obtained in 2016 and by February 2018. That is wholly inconsistent with the appellant’s evidence as to when his fingerprints were taken in Ghana. His evidence on that has varied and I do not accept it. Further, absent any reliable evidence of tampering, the passport must have been obtained in 2016, well before the appellant fled to Ghana.
68. I accept that the appellant has produced documents from Togo. I accept also that he has provided envelopes as to show how they were sent but nonetheless those documents fall to be assessed in line with the principles set out in Tanveer Ahmed. They have to be viewed in the round.
69. As noted above, the appellant has given some evidence of life in Togo and I do not discount the possibility that he has lived there. There are, however, difficulties regarding the photographs, clearly of him at a younger age, said to have been taken at a school in Sokode. But the name given of the school shown on the photographs is somewhat inconsistent with the name of the school given in his interview albeit that this was not put to him in cross-examination. I will turn to that issue again.
70. I accept also that the appellant’s account of what happened in Togo of why he fled has been broadly consistent through several interviews and witness statements.
71. There is a clear discrepancy as to the evidence given regarding the appellant’s wife, children and his own date of birth between the visa applications and his statements elsewhere. The names vary as do the number of children.
72. I have considered, as Mr Haddow submitted I should, whether that the Nigerien passport was obtained by bribery and thus is not evidence of that nationality, my attention being drawn in particular to the differences in the personal details of his parents.
73. I accept that there is a stark difference between what would appear to follow if the passport is reliable evidence of Nigerian nationality, and the appellant’s account of persecution in Togo.
74. While I can accept that a passport could be obtained by bribery, there is insufficient evidence to show that the passport had been tampered with; on the contrary, it was accepted as valid by the UK Immigration authorities. I am satisfied that it was, as it records, issued in 2016. There is a six-year difference in the ages given, and there are different details as to parents and immediate family. But it does not necessarily follow that the details given as part of the asylum claim, consistent with being born and grown up in Togo to parents born there is correct or supports the submission that the passport was obtained by bribery. It is entirely possible that it is the Togo narrative, which is incorrect and has been fabricated, or that the appellant and his family spent time there.
75. It is also equally possible that the documents provided to support the visa application were false, and that the details on the application were false, but it does not follow that the details on the passport were also false.
76. Drawing these strands together, I find that the appellant has not told the truth about the visa applications, or how his fingerprints were obtained to be attached to visa applications made in 2016 or 2018, using a passport issued in 2016. Given the inconsistencies identified above in the narrative of when the fingerprints were taken, and given the lack of an explanation how this could have been done in 2016, I conclude that the appellant’s evidence is unreliable on this issue, and that he is not a credible witness with respect to his nationality. I do not accept that the Niger passport was obtained by bribery; the respondent has satisfied me on the balance of probabilities that it was properly issued to the appellant and that he is a is a citizen of Niger.
77. I turn next to the evidence I heard on 17 December 2024. In doing so, I have taken it into account together with the evidence heard previously. I remind myself that that having found against the appellant in respect of nationality and how the Niger passport was obtained, it does not necessarily follow that the rest of his account is untrue.
78. In assessing the appellant’s credibility overall, I have assessed the evidence in the round. I note also that the appellant has now produced for the 17 December 2024 hearing a witness statement in which he seeks to give further evidence regarding matters on which I had previously made findings regarding his nationality. He maintains that he had lived in Togo and was politically active there [23]. He also makes the point that the original documents provided had been supplied along with the preliminary information questionnaire as part of his asylum claim [27]. Commenting on my decision of 3 June 2024, although it is stated not to be done with the intention of re-arguing the issue of nationality it is difficult to consider it as anything other than that. He refers to the information on the photographs of the school being pre-printed by the school and note he believes that the wording EPL “is a French term which stands for “école publique laïque” and that the school was in Sokode, the main city and village he is from and Kparatao is nearby. He confirmed that the information regarding his family members is correct and he and his wife have two sons and they also care for his nieces and dependent child.
79. He explains also his wife and children are now in Benin and that he has difficulty in contacting his father.
80. In assessing the appellant’s evidence, and doing so in the round, I accept there may well be reasons why somebody would not tell the truth, in particular, how they were able to travel to the United Kingdom and particularly if that is being done with the assistance of an agent. Many people are compelled to use agents and false documents in order to leave countries when they are at risk and to reach safety. Here, however, it is not so much the fact the appellant obtained a false document which is in issue but (as noted above) the chronology of when it was obtained, how an attempt to use it to travel to the USA was made and, it was obtained, a significant period before the appellant had difficulties and before he left Togo and went to Ghana.
81. I bear in mind the unchallenged views of the expert, which is that the appellant has provided a clear and consistent account of the political situation in Togo. This is in due in particular to details given by the appellant in relation to the PNP, which are said to be accurate, as is his account of events of 19 August 2017 and that the protest relating in a particular area which is less prominently featured in the international media.
82. While there is a degree of consistency in the documents produced covering apparently a number of years, and there are school photographs of the appellant apparently taken in Togo, which show him at a younger age.
83. That said, however, even though the documents may have been sent to the United Kingdom from Togo and may appear to be originals, the expert is unable to comment on the authenticity of the documents beyond saying that they appear genuine. Document verification not his area of expertise. But I bear in mind, applying the principles set out in Tanveer Ahmed, that I must consider them in the round. The includes the context whereby the appellant was able to obtain a visit visa to enter the United Kingdom which required the production of documentation supportive of claimed resources and employment. On the appellant’s evidence, those could not have been genuine in which case it follows that at some point he had the resources available to him whereby false documents were created.
84. To a significant extent, the expert reports and conclusions are predicated on the assumption that the appellant is telling the truth. I observe he notes consistencies in the names and places in the documents, specifically the birth certificates, school certificate and certificates relating to the parents.
85. I bear in mind that the expert’s comments are simply that the account is plausible. It does not necessarily mean that what the appellant narrates happened to him.
86. The expert’s views on the passport that the appellant used to travel to the United Kingdom are less helpful. As he himself accepts, it is possible that the appellant travelled on a passport from another member state of ECOWAS such as Niger. It is, however, at best unfortunate that the timeline in his report does not include the submission of the passport on which the appellant travelled to the US Embassy to obtain a visa in 2016, and it is selective in that when the expert says the timeline is compatible with the dates of the visa application, it omits that central fact. Whilst it is plausible that there was an error over the appellant’s stepmother’s nationality, which is equally plausible that he is seeking now to distance himself from Niger.
87. Similarly, the evidence relating to how an applicant can obtain Niger passports are of little assistance in assessing how redocumentation would be obtained when a state makes the request of another state. Further, it demonstrates a lack of knowledge as to how such matters are dealt with and it was not appropriate for him to speculate as to whether the document could have been fraudulent, stolen or adopted, or in some other way manipulated, given the findings reached by the Upper Tribunal. Nor was it appropriate for him to base a further opinion as to the likely attitude of the Nigerien government or Nigerian diplomatic missions. This renders his conclusions on this issue irrelevant and lacking in substance. Similarly, the speculation as to the attitudes of the Nigerien authorities towards the appellant being a Togolese citizen are again speculative and again dependent on the assumption that the appellant is telling the truth. Similarly the difficulties he would have again are speculation based on yet further speculation to the extent that they are simply unreliable and, for reasons set out above, I disbelieve the appellant’s account in its entirety, with regard to the cross appeal.
88. Taking all of these factors into account I do not accept that the appellant is credible. As stated earlier I cannot discount the possibility given the photographic evidence that the appellant was resident in Togo. Certainly he appears to know a lot about the country as is confirmed by the expert and those findings are not ones with which I disagree as they are properly grounded in evidence.
89. I am, however, dependent on the appellant’s own evidence as to why he cannot, as a matter of fact, be a citizen of Niger. In particular his evidence that his mother (or now stepmother) was not from Niger. As the appellant and expert explains, the obtaining of false passports in West Africa is not particularly difficult and the background evidence demonstrates it is relatively easy to obtain other documents.
90. Given that the appellant obtained this passport in 2016, as is demonstrated by the timeline established in the previous ruling, and his fingerprints were taken in 2016 in connection with the US visa application, his inability to account for this simply undermines his credibility as a whole. Further, it disturbs the entire narrative of what the appellant was doing in Togo, and why he had to flee. Equally, that he had the resources to obtain such a passport before he encountered problems indicates a degree of sophistication and to have been done at a time when, if he is to be believed, he was not in active danger.
91. Taking this as a whole, whilst I accept the appellant has lived in Togo for some time and I cannot discount the possibility that he had some involvement with politics, I reject the remainder of his claim. I do not accept his account of coming to adverse attention, nor do I accept the authenticity of the documents purporting to demonstrate that.
92. I find that the appellant is a citizen of Niger. I do not accept that he has told the truth about his involvement in politics in Togo and I do not accept that he has come to the adverse attention of the authorities in Togo or in Niger. I find that the appellant has been dishonest in his account of how and when he obtained a Niger passport, and that this dishonesty undermines his claims and credibility as a whole. I accept that he has lived in Togo, but I am not satisfied as to how long he lived there.
93. On the basis of these findings, I am not satisfied on the lower standard of proof that the appellant has a well-founded fear of persecution in either Togo or Niger, or that to return him there would be in breach of his rights under the Human Rights Convention; nor am I satisfied that he is at risk of ill-treatment on return to either Togo or Niger of sufficient severity that he would be entitled to Humanitarian Protection. I therefore dismiss the appeal on all grounds.
Addendum
This decision was finalised on 10 March 2025 but owing to error was not sent for promulgation.

Notice of Decision
1. I dismiss the appeal on all grounds.

Signed Date: 28 April 2025
Jeremy K H Rintoul
Judge of the Upper Tribunal