Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2022-000890

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/13819/2018

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 10 April 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE OWENS

Between

MA (BANGLADESH)
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr S Karim, Counsel instructed by Imran & Co Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr E Terrell, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 28 October 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. This appeal comes before me for re-making. I set aside the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Ford on 6 November 2023 dismissing the appellant’s appeal against the decision to refuse his protection and human rights claims dated 23 November 2018 on the basis that there had been a material error of law for the reasons given in the decision dated 6 November 2023 appended to this decision at Annex A. The decision was set aside in its entirety with no factual findings preserved. (The appeal had previously been dismissed on 19 August 2019 and 11 June 2020 and been remitted on both occasions to be reheard by the First-tier Tribunal).
Decision under Appeal
2. The decision under appeal is the decision dated 23 November 2018 refusing the appellant’s protection and human rights claims.
Immigration History
3. The appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh born on 3 September 1979. He first came to the United Kingdom on 4 November 2007 having appealed successfully against the refusal of a working holiday maker visa. On expiry of that visa, he applied for further leave to remain as a visitor. The application was refused on 8 January 2010. An application for leave to remain on compassionate grounds dated 5 December 2011 was refused on 24 November 2012. An application on human rights grounds dated 1 March 2013 was refused on 19 August 2013 and the appeal against that decision was dismissed on 25 February 2014. Further submissions were rejected on 17 August 2014 and 21 August 2015. The appellant resided in Ireland between 2015 and 2016 with his brother. On 13 October 2016 he made an application for an EEA residence card and this was refused on 24 May 2017 with further submissions refused on 17 April 2018. On 25 May 2018 the appellant claimed asylum on the basis of his claimed political opinion and activities for the BNP. The application was considered and refused on 23 November 2018.
Issues in the Appeal
4. It is agreed by the parties that the issues in the appeal were the following:
(1) Did the appellant carry out political activity for the BNP in Bangladesh?
(2) What was the extent of the appellant’s sur place activities for the BNP in the United Kingdom.
(3) Are there outstanding charges against him and a warrant for his arrest?
(4) The risk to him of serious harm as a result of his political activities in Bangladesh.
(5) Whether it would be a breach of Article 3 ECHR to remove him to Bangladesh.
(6) Whether it would be a breach of Article 8 ECHR to remove him to Bangladesh.
5. In very brief summary, the respondent’s position is that the appellant lacks credibility, he is not genuinely politically active, there are no outstanding charges against him in Bangladesh, he did not previously carry out political activities there and there is no risk to him on return by reason of his profile with the BNP. Secondly the respondent asserts that there has been a recent regime change in Bangladesh. As a result, even were I to accept his claim as credible, the appellant would no longer be at risk of serious harm on account of his political opinion.
6. The appellant’s position is that he is a genuine BNP activist from a BNP family who was active for the BNP in Bangladesh; he has continued his BNP activities in the United Kingdom, holds a role of responsibility within the party at his local branch, has posted material critical to the Sheikh Hasina regime online and as a result there are criminal cases outstanding against him which would put him at risk on return to Bangladesh. He asserts that notwithstanding there has been a regime change, he would still be at risk because Bangladesh is in a state of flux, it is very soon after the regime change and the judiciary, police and security services are still manned by Awami League personnel.
The Hearing
7. The appellant appeared in person and gave oral evidence, as did his brother. A second witness, Mr Ahmed, appeared by video link. He confirmed that he was able to hear and see the participants and there were no technical difficulties with the second witness giving evidence.
8. The appellant and his brother gave evidence in Bengali Sylheti through a court appointed interpreter and both witnesses confirmed that they understood the interpreter. There was no problem with interpretation.
9. At the end of the hearing, both representatives made submissions which are recorded in the Record of Proceedings and to which I will refer below.
Documentary Evidence
10. The documentary evidence consisted of a 1,159 page consolidated bundle which included all the documentary evidence relied on by the appellant including a core bundle and five supplementary bundles as well as the evidence relied on by the respondent. In addition, there was a more recent 73 page bundle from the appellant including an updated skeleton argument and supporting evidence. Mr Karim also relied on his previous skeleton argument dated 26 June 2024. Mr Terrell relied on the respondent’s skeleton argument dated 28 June 2024 as well as further evidence in the form of two response to information requests, one in relation to the resignation of Sheikh Hasina and treatment of journalists as well as a Reuters report. The respondent also produced the refusal of the appellant’s submissions dated 18 August 2013 and 21 August 2015.
11. The appellant was treated as a vulnerable witness in line with the Presidential Guidance on vulnerable witnesses. Mr Karim confirmed that the reasonable adjustments would involve asking straightforward questions during the appeal. I indicated to the appellant that because of his backache he could stand up if necessary, which he did on a few occasions. I also indicated to him that if he was feeling tired or needed a break he could ask for one. He was given one long break after his oral evidence and again at lunchtime. The appellant was treated as a vulnerable witness firstly because he had had a stroke in 2022 which has affected his memory to some extent. He also suffers from depression and has physical limitations. The respondent did not object to the appellant being treated as a vulnerable witness.
Oral Evidence
12. The appellant adopted three previous statements dated 26 June 2018, 1 July 2019 and 9 September 2021. He was cross-examined at length.
13. His oral evidence was as follows:
14. On his arrival in the United Kingdom in 2007, he feared returning to Bangladesh. He claimed asylum for the first time in 2018. His reason for not claiming asylum before then was because he had obtained advice from a number of solicitors firms and after explaining his situation was advised to make human rights applications instead of claiming asylum. He did not understand the concept of political asylum.
15. There are outstanding complaints against him. Prior to the complaints there were raids on his home and the police were looking for him. The raids intensified in June 2019. He had a lawyer acting on his behalf in Bangladesh. He has not obtained a copy of the arrest warrant from his lawyer. He agreed that the cases against him were brought because he had made insulting posts on Facebook in respect of Sheikh Hasina. He confirmed that his lawyers in Bangladesh have not sought to get the charges against him dismissed. It was put to him that he was not telling the truth about the outstanding cases, he was not genuinely interested in the BNP and that he had not been involved in the BNP in Bangladesh. The appellant asserted that he was a genuine activist who had cases against him.
16. He was active in the BNP prior to 2016 but at that point he became the joint organising secretary of the Camden and Westminster branch.
17. He confirmed that the witness Mr Ahmed was in the central BNP committee in London. He is aware that there is a new interim government in place. He is not aware that BNP members are part of the new interim government.
18. The witness, Mr Ahmed confirmed that his role is organising secretary of the BNP UK central committee. He is aware that the appellant is the joint secretary of the Camden and Westminster branch and he has seen the appellant at demonstrations and meetings. He believes that the appellant was a genuine BNP activist from a BNP family. His brothers and relatives were all BNP affiliated and he knows the family from Bangladesh before he came to the United Kingdom in the late 1970s/early 1980s.
19. The appellant’s brother confirmed that one of his brothers in Bangladesh is a BNP leader, that the family home has been raided and that the appellant is a BNP supporter. His evidence was that he and his family in the UK would not be able to provide the appellant with financial support in Bangladesh. He himself is not active in the BNP although he was in the past. He is aware that there are two cases against the appellant and that he had been politically active and is also active on social media. He last visited Bangladesh two or three years ago when his mother was unwell.
20. The submissions are recorded in the record of proceedings and I will refer to the representatives’ submissions when I come to deal with the evidence.
Credibility
21. In this appeal, a substantial passage of time has elapsed since the original decision refusing the protection claim was taken in 2018. This is because the appeal has come before the First-tier Tribunal on three occasions. On each occasion, the First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal and on all three occasions the decisions dismissing the appeal have been set aside by the Upper Tribunal. It is now six years since the original decision was taken and unsurprisingly over the passage of that six years there is considerably more documentary and supporting evidence than there was at the date that the original decision was made which Mr Terrell properly acknowledged in his submissions.
22. The reasons originally given for rejecting the claim by the respondent was that it was not accepted that the appellant had genuinely been involved in BNP activities in Bangladesh and it was considered that any activities that he had been involved with in the United Kingdom were limited, were not genuinely motivated and would not in any event bring him to the attention of the authorities. The respondent also relied on Tanveer Ahmed and found that the documentation in respect of the outstanding cases was unreliable, particularly given the ease with which false documents can be obtained in Bangladesh and in light of the remainder of the appellant’s evidence.
23. The respondent also relied on Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. There was a long delay between the appellant arriving in the United Kingdom and claiming asylum and this has damaged his credibility.
24. The skeleton argument prepared by the respondent on 28 June 2024 continued to assert that there are major credibility issues with the appeal. For instance, it is asserted that there are inconsistencies in the timings of the false cases against the appellant including a letter from Taj Solicitors dated November 2011 which referred to false cases against the appellant, inconsistencies in the timing of the complaints as well as in the contents of the supporting letters. It was also asserted that the Facebook posts are not presented in line with XX (PJAK, sur place activities, Facebook) (CG) UKUT 00023 [2022] in that the “download your information” function has not been provided. The skeleton argument also addressed the expert report of the barrister Saqueb Mahbub. The Secretary of State had concerns about how the expert verified the document provided to him by the solicitors. Mr Terrell also made lengthy oral submissions about the appellant’s credibility. He referred to the inconsistencies and vagueness of the appellant’s oral evidence and submitted that these could not reasonably be attributed to any medical problems. The medical evidence was insufficient to explain the extent of the appellant’s failure to remember aspects of his claim and explain the deficiencies in his oral evidence. I deal with these inconsistencies below.
25. When assessing the sea of evidence before me, which in this appeal was considerable, I start with the appellant’s oral evidence.
26. I had regard to a letter dated 24 May 2024 from the Amwell Group Practice from Dr Shaneil Tanna, the appellant’s GP. This confirmed that the appellant had an ischaemic stroke in 2022, continues to struggle with altered sensation in his right hand and arm, and occasionally experiences word finding difficulties and memory loss. He also regularly takes Clopidogrel and Atorvastatin. He also has Type 2 diabetes and depression for which he has had medication and psychological therapy in the past.
27. On the basis of this evidence I accept that the appellant does have various health problems and that the stroke that he had in 2022 does to a certain extent contribute towards his memory loss.
28. I agree with Mr Terrell that the appellant’s oral evidence was not particularly impressive. He struggled to remember dates and his evidence was in nearly all respects very vague. He could not with any accuracy state when raids started against his family home. His assertion that the raids took place because the authorities were searching for him when he was in the United Kingdom did not have the ring of truth. He was also vague about when he had started posting on-line. He was vague about the extent of his brother’s potential activities, about the witness’s position in the BNP and how long he had been involved in the BNP. I agree that not all of this vagueness can be explained away by the appellant’s poor memory as a result of his stroke, however I do accept that his health does have some bearing on his inability to give accurate dates. However I also took into account the fact that the appellant has been asked a fourth time at an appeal to answer questions about events which happened as far back as 1996, 30 years ago. It is unsurprising that a 45 year old man with several health problems is not able to accurately pinpoint the dates that raids occurred on his property when he is describing a period which stretches from just before he left Bangladesh in 2007 to the present day, particularly when he has not been living in Bangladesh for the last eighteen years. I find that this goes some way to explaining why his oral evidence was rather vague. I bear this and his vulnerability in mind when assessing his evidence.
Events in Bangladesh prior to 2007
29. The appellant claims that he was a supporter, member and activist for the Chhatra Dal in Bangladesh which is the student wing of the BNP. He also claimed to have been a student member of the Jubadal (youth wing of the BNP). He states that he joined the Chhatra Dal in 1996 as a member of Number 8 Mansur Nagar Union Chhatra Dal, was elected as the organising secretary of the same branch in 1997 and that in 1998 he enrolled at Moulvibazar Government College and became a member of the college branch. In 1999 he was elected as publicity secretary of the college branch and performed his duties until 2001. He then joined the Bangladesh Nationalist Youth Party, Jubadal, as a member of the Moulvibazar district branch in 2004 and continued those duties until he came to the United Kingdom in 2007.
30. The external evidence confirms that the Chhatra Dal and Jubadal are associate organisations of the BNP.
31. My first observation is that the appellant has always been consistent in the fact that he carried out these activities for the BNP in Bangladesh both in his initial asylum claim and his statements and his evidence in this respect was not undermined in cross-examination. In fact, he was not asked any questions about these activities. I note that in his asylum interview the appellant was able to give detailed evidence about the BNP including when it started, the leaders, and the aims and political ideology of the party.
32. Secondly, I have regard to the background evidence in respect of Bangladesh. The evidence in the country information report is that there were two main parties in Bangladesh, the BNP and the Awami League, and that most of the population of Bangladesh supports one or other of the parties. From the background material it is apparent that whichever party is in power tends to give patronage and power to its own supporters. At the time that the appellant claims to have been a supporter, member, activist for the BNP, the BNP was in power. The fact that he claims to have been supporting the BNP is entirely plausible in the context of the background material.
33. The appellant’s activities in Bangladesh are supported by three letters, one from Jakir Hossain Uzzan, President of the Bangladeshi Nationalist Youth Party and Moulvibazar District Unit dated 5 July 2018, a letter from Mizanur Rahman, general secretary of the BNP Moulivibazar District Unit, dated 5 July 2018 and a letter from Md Rubel Miah President of the Bangladeshi Jatiatabadi Chatradal dated 3 July 2018. All three letters confirm the roles he played. I take note of Mr Terrell’s submission that all of the letters contain identical wording at the end of the letters which is “In the circumstances, if he returns back to Bangladesh, he will be suffering from life security that his life will be at stake. I wish him a bright future in life.” which does not inspire confidence that these letters were written by two different people. However, the letters are on headed notepaper for different organisations, signed with different signatures and confirm the appellant’s positions in the respective organisations. It may well be that the appellant provided the writers with a draft letter for them to endorse, however the contents are consistent with the appellant’s evidence. I give the letters some limited weight.
34. I give significant weight to the evidence of the Mr Ahmed, the appellant’s witness. He came to the United Kingdom in the late 1970s. His evidence was that the appellant came from a family of staunch BNP supporters. I have no reason not to give weight to Mr Ahmed’s evidence. Mr Ahmed has held important roles in the BNP in the United Kingdom. This was not in dispute from the evidence he provided. He has been involved in BNP politics for a long time and has personal knowledge of the appellant and his family from Bangladesh. Mr Ahmed’s evidence was also consistent with the appellant’s brother’s evidence that the appellant’s brother in Bangladesh is a local BNP leader which in turn is consistent with an affidavit from that brother, Sheikh Ruhul Amin, who confirms that he is a local BNP leader. In the light of this consistent evidence which is consistent with the background material, I am satisfied to the relevant standard that the appellant was a supporter, member and activist for the Chhatra Dal in Bangladesh prior to coming to the United Kingdom as he claims. I find that he was active for the party and was a staunch supporter who carried out various political activities. I also find that the timing of his departure from Bangladesh coincided with the BNP losing power, the caretaker government taking over and difficulties arising for BNP supporters and activists.
The Appellant’s Activities in the United Kingdom
35. The appellant claims to have been active for the BNP in the United Kingdom. His evidence is that prior to 2016 he would attend some meetings and go on protests. Over time his political participation increased and by 2016 he was elected as the joint secretary of Camden Westminster BNP which as explained by Mr Ahmed, the witness, is one of the 45 branches of the BNP in the United Kingdom. I take into account that the appellant has also been consistent about his political activity in the United Kingdom in his statements and that the fact that he is active is supported by evidence of his brother and various BNP members including Mr Ahmed who attended court as well as a Mr Rahman who was unable to attend because of his illness. There are letters from Camden Westminster BNP dated 7 July 2018 and a letter from Mr Malique dated 16 July 2018. Mr Rahman is the international affairs secretary of Bangladesh National Party-BNP, National Executive Committee and was formerly the president and chief advisor for the BNP UK Chapter. He confirms in his statement dated 18 October 2021 that the appellant holds the position of joint secretary of Camden and Westminster BNP and that he is a dedicated politician and committed to the restoration of democratic government in Bangladesh. He confirms that the appellant participates in all meetings and gatherings called by the BNP Nationalist Party UK Chapter.
36. The appellant’s activities in attending meetings and going on demonstrations were supported by numerous documents in the bundle for instance photographs of him attending meetings and participating in online Zoom BNP meetings. His most recent bundle contains a schedule of recent demonstrations which he has attended and there are photos of him attending demonstrations and meetings in 2023 and 2024. As Mr Karim observed, the appellant can be seen in the photographs speaking into a megaphone, holding placards and being in a prominent position. The respondent does not assert that the appellant has not carried out these political activities in the United Kingdom. The basis of the respondent’s argument is that the appellant has manufactured or has carried out these activities for the BNP in order to create a claim for asylum and that his activities are not genuinely motivated.
37. I find that the appellant does have a genuine affiliation and political motivation to the BNP. Firstly, for the reasons set out above, I have found that the appellant comes from a long standing BNP supporting family and that his brother is a local leader in Bangladesh. I give weight to the evidence of Mr Ahmed who confirmed his view that the appellant was a genuine activist and I am persuaded of this by the extent of the appellant’s involvement with the BNP. This is not a matter of the appellant turning up to a few demonstrations and taking photographs of himself to fabricate a claim but somebody who is clearly at the heart of the BNP branch in his local area and has been carrying out many activities on a sustained basis over a long period of time. I find that all of this evidence is consistent with him being a genuine BNP member and activist in the United Kingdom with a prominent role in his local BNP branch.
38. At this juncture I state that I agree with the submission of Mr Karim that it is likely on this basis alone that the appellant’s activities would have been monitored by the Sheikh Hasina government in Bangladesh over the last few years. The extent of the oppression of Awami League opponents is well documented both in the background material and in the respondent’s own previous CPIN which refers to the arrest and detention of political activists. I note and have regard to the authority of WAS (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 894 in which the Court of Appeal has reminded Tribunals that it may not be easy for appellants to provide evidence of monitoring of activities. The court relied on Sedley LJ’s comments in YB (Eritrea) v SSHD [2008] EWCA Civ 360 in which he said:
“18. Where, as here, the tribunal has objective evidence which ‘paints a bleak picture of the suppression of political opponents’ by a named government, it requires little or no evidence or speculation to arrive at a strong possibility – and perhaps more – that its foreign legations not only film or photograph their nationals who demonstrate in public against the regime but have informers among expatriate oppositionist organisations who can name the people who are filmed or photographed. Similarly it does not require affirmative evidence to establish a probability that the intelligence services of such states monitor the internet for information about oppositionist groups”.
39. This evidence is also consistent with the evidence of the witness. I note and take into account here that Mr Terrell did not seek to undermine the expertise of the expert witness and the CPIN, version 3, September 2020 at 2.4.6 which states “Street-level informers are employed and digital technology is used to monitor and surveil opposition leaders and activists both domestically and abroad”. On this basis I find that the appellant’s activities in the United Kingdom in attending meetings and demonstrations alone would have brought him to the attention of the Bangladeshi authorities and would have put him at risk.
40. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has posted material criticising the Awami League on Facebook and in particular has posted material which is insulting to Sheikh Hasina herself. Substantial extracts of this Facebook material appears in the bundles of evidence, including posts critical of the Awami League. I take into account Mr Terrell’s submission that the Facebook material has not been adduced completely in line with XX (PJAK) but there is additional evidence that the appellant has appeared in various other media outlets such as news articles, printed and on TV online. A news article at core bundle 62 in the Asian Bangla which appeared in a UK based publication, names the appellant personally as attending a protest with other BNP members when Sheikh Hasina attended the Commonwealth Conference in April 2016 and who were engaged in on-line posting.. Other news articles include an article on Sawdindesh online dated 17 April 2019 naming the appellant at a protest and a link to Jamuna TV. Further the expert confirms that he was able to access the appellant’s Facebook and view material that indicated that the appellant supports the BNP and has an important role in the BNP and has posted material critical of the Awami League.
41. Notwithstanding the fact that the appellant has not downloaded the entire of his Facebook print out, the evidence that has been adduced is sufficient to persuade me that he has posted critical material online and in other media outlets and that his Facebook is open and can be accessed by other people. For the same reasons I have already given I find that it is likely that the material would have been monitored by the Awami League and the Bangladeshi authorities under the government of Sheikh Hasina.
42. I turn to the evidence about the appellant’s home being raided. I agree with Mr Terrell that the appellant’s oral evidence in this respect was poor and very vague. The appellant previously had different solicitors and some of his old statements and previous representations in support of his case have been worded rather loosely and without an apparent attention to detail or accuracy. Nevertheless, Mr Terrell sought to submit that the appellant’s evidence was completely inconsistent because he had never previously mentioned his home being raided prior to 2018 when he claims that charges were brought against him in Bangladesh. I am not in agreement. Having scrutinised the evidence carefully I find that although loosely penned, his statement refers to his house being raided “more consistently after the charges were made” from which I infer that his home was raided prior to these charges. This was in fact consistent with his oral evidence in the hearing. It was also consistent with an affidavit produced by his brother in which he also confirmed that the family home had been raided both prior to the charges being brought and after this.
43. The appellant’s oral evidence was that the authorities were raiding his home to look for him. I do not entirely accept this evidence. I find that it was unlikely that the Bangladeshi authorities would be raiding the appellant’s home to look for him given that he has been in the United Kingdom since 2007. Given the level of surveillance by the Bangladeshi authorities against political activists, I find that they would have been well aware that the appellant was in the United Kingdom undertaking activities outside Bangladesh. I find that it is more likely that his home was raided as a result of the activities of his brother who was a local BNP leader and because his family is a BNP family. The raids against the property are consistent with the background evidence in relation to the treatment of BNP activists set out in, for instance, the 2020 CPIN. It is manifest that the previous Awami League government and regime under Sheikh Hasina did not broker any dissent and that opposition activists were routinely detained, tortured and on occasions disappeared.
44. I therefore find that the appellant’s home has been raided by the authorities, although not in connection with the appellant’s activities.
The Charges against the Appellant
45. I first consider the background evidence in respect of false charges. A previous CPIN, version 1, dated April 2020 at 2.5.3 stated:
“2.5.3 Law enforcement agencies are aligned with the ruling party. Political affiliation may be a motive for the arrest and prosecution of people on criminal charges. The police and the criminal justice system are functioning, but their effectiveness is undermined by poor infrastructure and endemic corruption, which severely compromises the state authorities ability to provide effective protection, particularly for active members of opposition political parties”.
“10.2.7 ‘Political affiliation often appeared to be a factor in claims of arrest and prosecution of members of opposition parties, including through spurious charges under the pretext of responding to national security threats”.
46. At CPIN, version 2, January 2021 2.4.2 it is stated:
“2.4.2 The authorities sometimes use legal provisions, such as the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Act or Digital Security Act (DSA), to harass, arrest, detain or prosecute persons who have published material that is deemed to be critical of the state, the Constitution or the ruling party, and thus considered seditious or defamatory. It is also a criminal offence to publish material that is deemed to hurt religious sentiment or values or that may spread hatred or hostility that threatens public order, decency or morality”.
47. The expert Mr Saqeb Mahbab’s evidence does not go beyond what is said in the CPINs in that he states that politically motivated cases were used as devices to harass or incarcerate opposition, commenting that so called “ghost cases” were used liberally in the run up to the elections in 2018 and included cases against individuals who were deceased or living abroad. He also comments that politically motivated cases often contain incomplete or unsubstantiated allegations. I find that this is in line with the CPIN evidence.
48. I am satisfied that the background material supports the appellant’s assertion that the Awami League did bring fake charges of criminal cases against opposition members and that these charges may be vague inaccurate or unsubstantiated.
49. I take into account Mr Terrell’s submission that the Secretary of State’s view (in general) is that it is possible to obtain fake documents in Bangladesh and that I should treat any such documents with caution and I bear this in mind when assessing the evidence.
50. When considering this documentation, I am also assisted by two further important pieces of evidence. The first is the lawyer to lawyer communication and the second is the report by the expert instructed by the appellant’s solicitors.
51. The documentation in respect of the “fake charges” consists of an First Information Report “FIR” and a copy of the original complaint dated 3 March 2018 filed at the Senior Judicial Magistrate Court no 4 Cox’s Bazar relating to the appellant’s on-line activities consisting of defamatory comments against Sheikh Hasina and her party ( case reference C R.306/2018) as well as a further FIR dated 13 June 2019 filed at Jatrabadi Police Station, Dhaka by Mr Sheikh Mohammed Golam Kibria under diary entry 1124 in respect of on-line activities in the UK again comprising of false pictures and defamatory comments about Sheikh Hasina. This is said to have been converted to a case on 16 June 2019 under case no 2989.
52. There is a letter from Mr Nuzrul Azim at Union Chambers dated 12 April 2018 which confirms that a criminal case has been filed against the appellant as a result of him making defamatory remarks against Sheikh Hasina. It is said that there is a summons and a court hearing. The letter encloses a document entitled “criminal petition”. There was before me lawyer to lawyer correspondence (as well as copies of the email transmissions) between Kalam Solicitors based in Whitechapel Road and the barrister at law Mr Nuzrul Azim advocate in Bangladesh. A letter from Nurul Azam dated 20 June 2019 states that investigations have revealed that a general diary complaint was made against the appellant by an Awami League lawyer in respect of Digital Security Act Offences which was transferred to DMP headquarters for approval to be registered as an FIR. of A letter dated 26 June 2019 stated that the lawyer had attended DMP headquarters and attempted to obtain a certified copy of FIR 2089 but had not been able to obtain this but had obtained a copy of a General Diary entry and Ajahar (prosecution) Included is a copy of an entry into the general diary at Jatrabari police station with a request to take legal action. Mr Terrell submits that it is not plausible that the political affiliation and details of the complainant in the second matter were revealed to the lawyer, but these details can be found in the complaint itself and my understanding is that any individual can file a complaint ( or make an allegation) and it is then for the authorities to decide whether to proceed to prosecute. There were also before me Mr Azim’s legal certificates and his Bar Association Membership.
53. The appellant instructed a barrister an EIN expert Mr Saqeb Mahbub to attempt to verify the FIR 2989 at Jatrabadi police station. I was provided with the letter of instruction to the expert report and the electronic immigration network profile of the expert as well as his certificates and ID card. The expert confirms that he is an independent expert on the Bangladeshi law and justice system, is a Bangladeshi national and practicing lawyer with rights of audience in the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh and that he has represented clients in numerous cases of a political nature. He obtained his bachelors and masters at the LSE and has worked on UNHCR and USAID Projects. It was not submitted that he did not have appropriate expertise. The expert had before him a complete set of the papers in the appellant’s case.
54. The expert sought to try and verify the existence of a criminal complaint against the appellant. He visited the office of the Cyber Security and Crime Division on 25 August 2021. He says “Upon presenting a copy of the complaint, the duty officer at the reception confirmed that the said complaint appears to conform with the format of complaints filed in their office and the various annotations also suggest that the complaint is one that has been received and recorded by the said division. Thus it appears to me that the complaint against the appellant is genuine”.
55. The respondent did not seek to submit that the expert did not have appropriate expertise, rather the respondent’s submission is that the result of the enquires made at the police station cannot be relied on because all they confirm is that the complaint conforms with the format and the annotations suggest it has been received and recorded by the division. I give weight to the expert evidence, although I note the limitations of what he was told at the police station. The expert was not able to ascertain with a degree of certainty whether cases had been issued against the appellant nor the status of those cases.
56. Having looked at this evidence in the round, including in the context of the background material and allowing for the fact that fake documents are easy to obtain in Bangladesh , I am satisfied to the lower standard that criminal charges were brought against the appellant under the Digital Security Act by Awami League supporters as a result of allegations that he had insulted Sheikh Hasina on Facebook even though the appellant was abroad at the time. This is consistent with the background evidence on surveillance and the use of the Digital Security Act to silence dissent particularly around 2018 and consistent with the appellant being an active member of the BNP in the UK and posting critical posts. I am also satisfied that the appellant has received some threats as a result of the posts
57. I note that the most recent letter from Union Solicitors dated 2 June 2024 confirms that he visited the Magistrate’s Court at Cox’s Bazar and has found that the case has been transferred to another court for trial and because the appellant did not attend the court hearing there is an arrest warrant in place for him. The lawyer also stated that he visited the office of the Detective Branch Cyber Security and Crime Division on 30 May 2024 and the duty officer confirmed that the case there would be still under investigation. From this I find that as of 30 May 2024 the cases are still outstanding.
58. Mr Terrell queried why the appellant’s solicitors have not sought to have the charges dropped since the regime change. The appellant was not really able to give any coherent explanation as to why this had not happened.
Timing of the Asylum Claim
59. I consider the appellant’s explanation as to why he failed to claim asylum earlier. In 2011 the appellant’s then representatives made submissions to the Secretary of State claiming that the appellant had political problems in Bangladesh as a result of his affiliation to the BNP. It was said at that time that there were false cases against him. The appellant was advised by the respondent in writing that if he feared persecution it would be appropriate for him to claim asylum. Despite this he did not claim asylum through the correct procedure although in further representations he continued to raise his fear of being persecuted. He was informed by the Secretary of State on a second occasion that the appropriate course of action would be to claim asylum at the Asylum Screening Unit. Despite this it was not until 2018 after several applications had failed that the appellant claimed asylum.
60. The appellant’s explanation is that he did not understand about claiming asylum and that his solicitors advised him to make human rights claims. He did not know what to do and he was following the advice of his solicitors. I am not particularly persuaded by this explanation. Whilst the appellant may have known little about political asylum on his immediate arrival in the United Kingdom and he may have been awaiting the outcome of what would happen in Bangladesh after the interim government, it was quite clear by 2009 that the Awami League were in power and that he was likely to face difficulties if he returned to Bangladesh.
61. I disregard the reference to false cases in 2011 as this was clearly not an accurate depiction of the situation at that time. I note that this was not the appellant’s own evidence but appeared in submissions on his behalf.
62. The appellant has many friends and associates in the Bangladeshi community as well as family members and it is simply not plausible that he would not have not known how to claim asylum. Furthermore, he was directly informed of the correct procedure by the Home Office as early as 2013. His continued assertion that he did not know how to claim is not sustainable in the light of this evidence. It may well be that the appellant had other reasons that he did not wish to claim asylum. He may have, for instance, feared that he would be detained or had hopes that he would obtain status in another capacity although it is not possible to state this with any certainty as this is not the appellant’s evidence. In normal circumstances, therefore, Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimant’s Act ) 2004 would apply and there would be a presumption that the appellant was lacking in credibility.
63. However, I also note the caselaw in respect of section 8. The presumption that the appellant lacks credibility is to be measured against any other cogent and persuasive evidence of the appellant’s credibility. In this appeal, despite the late timing of his claim for asylum, I have had sight of a huge body of evidence which has persuaded me for the reasons I have set out above that the appellant has been truthful about the extent of his political involvement in both Bangladesh and the United Kingdom and the genuineness of his commitment to the BNP. I have therefore found the appellant to be credible for the reasons I state above.
Summary of Factual Findings
64. The appellant was a supporter, member and activist for Chhatra Dal in Bangladesh which is the student wing of the BNP. He was also a member of the Jubadal and the organising secretary of his branch prior to leaving Bangladesh in 2007. He has been politically active within the United Kingdom. He holds a prominent role within the UK BNP Camden and Westminster branch. He has attended several high ranking demonstrations and marches in the United Kingdom. He has written a number of Facebook posts against the ruling Awami League and Sheikh Hasina. His activities have been publicised in news articles. His activities would have been noted by the Bangladeshi authorities. He has false cases pending against him, these are primarily under the Digital Security Act 2018 and one of these offences is non-bailable. These prosecutions amount to persecution as they were designed to stifle political activity.
Risk on Return
65. I have no hesitation in finding that had this appeal been decided prior to the regime change that the appellant would be at risk of serious harm on his return from the Bangladeshi government.
66. In the hearing both representatives made submissions on risk on return. I will not repeat them in detail because they are largely repeated in the written submissions to which I refer below.
67. Mr Karim did submit that the objective evidence is that the Awami League which had been in power since 2008 for a period of twenty years and their supporters had permeated every organ of state in every area of government and the security apparatus is all dominated by Awami League supporters. He said that it was wishful thinking to suggest that all of these individuals and personnel would have changed their thinking overnight because of the fall of Sheikh Hasina. He pointed to the expert report where it is stated that the police are mandated to investigate every crime.
68. He also referred me to the evidence on prison conditions. The report of a Fact-Finding Mission conducted on 14 to 26 May 2017 found that Bangladesh prisons are overcrowded, 250% over capacity, there were about 25 prisoners a room, there is a drug problem in prisons and poor healthcare, insufficient food is supplied, corporal punishment occurs in prison. He pointed to the appellant’s particular vulnerability in that he is a 45 year old man who has had a stroke and diabetes which makes him particularly vulnerable to any mistreatment.
69. After hearing the appeal but before promulgation, the Secretary of State issued a new CPIN Bangladesh: Political situation version 1 December 2024. In the interests of justice on 14 January 2025, I directed both parties to make submissions on the likelihood that the appellant will be persecuted in Bangladesh in the light of the CPIN. Both parties responded to the directions with written submissions.
70. The broad factual background is accepted by both parties. The Awami League controlled government was previously known for targeting opposition members including active BNP members. However this government has now collapsed following protests in July 2024. The former AL Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina resigned on 5 August 2204 and an interim government has been set up and is led by Muhammad Yunus who is not aligned to any political party. The interim government is made up of students, civil society representatives as well as members of the BNP and Jel. The Awami League has no involvement in the new government. Elections have not as yet been called.
71. The latest CPIN can be summarised as follows:
72. Awami League members are now in hiding, former AL ministers members of parliament and other senior AL figures have been arrested in addition to hundreds of senior officials and AL leaders under the former government. The AL has been labelled as a fascist party and the AL Student wing has been banned. Murder charges have been brought against the former prime minister and 192 others over a number of deaths during the protests. Multiple former ministers police officers, AL leaders, BCL leaders in addition to another 250 to 300 unidentified individuals have been implicated. There has been a notable rise of legal actions targeting individuals associated with the AL government. There are reports that many AL associated students could face arrest. There are also reports of increased violence against those who are seen as being associated with the AL. The BNP itself has issued strong statements of support for the current government. There are reports that BNP members have sought to seize control businesses held by members of the ousted AL and some reports have indicated criminal behaviour on the part of BNP members.
73. The interim authorities have attempted to reform key aspects of the state including an effort by the government to clear out the most pro AL people from the government bureaucracy and judiciary which during AL's time in power it had stacked with its supporters. So far, the interim government has replaced several junior and mid-level members of key institutions particularly the judiciary, bureaucracy and the police. Many officials close to the AL remain in power however. Commissions on the police, the judiciary and anti-corruption have now been established. Those in the police loyal to the AL have been removed from post. The Inspector General of police and the head of the RAB have been replaced. The Supreme Court Chief Justice has been replaced. Hundreds of judges have been transferred. The new Chief Justice has announced a number of judicial reforms for the purposes of restoring public trust in the judiciary including abolishing the executive’s control of judicial promotion. One senior judge noted that they were simply not under the same level of politicisation and pressure that they faced before. In August 2020, a Commission of inquiry was set up to investigate people who were forcibly disappeared by different law enforcement agencies during the AL government's tenure. The interim government are exploring ways in order to investigate past atrocities. The interim government dismissed all mayors of 12 city corporations along with hundreds of other public representatives loyal to the AL across the country. Thousands of political prisoners detained whilst the 8 L government was in power have been released. Unjust cases filed against protest leaders in July and August have been dropped.
74. The respondent submitted that the appellant is highly unlikely to be at risk of persecution in light of the collapse of the Awami-League controlled government. The criminal charges against him were politically motivated. One charge appears to have been brought by a BCL leader for posts regarding Shiekh Hasina and other AL leaders. The respondent submits that the appellant is no longer at risk because of the seismic changes that have taken place in Bangladesh. Any risk is highly remote because the AL is no longer in power and the interim government has taken clear steps to clear out pro AL personnel from the bureaucracy, judiciary and police. The new interim government has no interest in persecuting AL’s political opponents, has released thousands of prisoners and dropped charges brought against those involved in the protests.
75. The appellant’s position is that there has not been a significant and durable change in Bangladesh. This will take time and in the meantime the appellant remains at risk. The standard of proof is a low one in accordance with MAH (Egypt) v SSHD [2023] EWCA Civ 216. The CPIN does not have the same weight and standing of a country guidance case and CPINs are frequently out of date by the time they are published. The appellant pointed to a news report that a BNP activist was killed in custody and that violence and unrest continues. The appellant also points to those part of the CPIN at 13 which refers to the extent of the politicisation of the police under the AL government with the police force being stacked with AL supporters. In particular they refer to the fact that police have gradually returned to duty with the government relacing senior officers implicated in abuse. Officers are worried about being attacked or changes for their role on the crackdown on protestors.
76. The appellant submits that the police is still manned by AL supporters. The appellant will be at risk on return and there is a real risk that he may be ill-treated by these people. It is also asserted that AL will try and regroup. They have not been banned as a political organisation and will seek to regain power. The chief of the army is AL. The current President is AL. The head of the interim government is still on bail for a politically motivated case. There is chaos and disorder in Bangladesh and the position remains precarious. There still have been no elections. ( I note that much of the references to chaos in the submissions related to the period in July and August 2024 when the protests were taking place.)
77. I have regard to the low standard of proof. I am mindful that the Country Guidance is still in force and that it is for the respondent to establish that there has been a significant and durable change to Bangladesh. However I cannot ignore that there has been a complete collapse of the AL regime in Bangladesh since August last year and I must assess the risk to the appellant at the date I make my decision.
78. I am mindful that the CPINs are based on research by the Home Office and do not carry the weight of Country Guidance. However, I also note that the CPIN is based on research on a range of recent sources.
79. I take into account that under the previous regime, the police force was very corrupt and shared a close connection with the AL who used law enforcement agencies to as a tool to suppress political opposition and dissent. I find that despite the interim government’s efforts to root out all AL supporters, that it is acknowledged, even in the CPIN that some AL officials remain in place. I accept that it will take time for neutral different individuals to be installed and that the situation in Bangladesh is somewhat disorderly and chaotic. The appellant does not however dispute that many leading and mid-level officials have been removed and that many judges have been dismissed and transferred and there have been huge measures taken to reform the police and judiciary already including charging law enforcement personnel.
80. The appellant’s submission is that notwithstanding the removal of the AL, he will be arrested because of the warrant and that corrupt AL police may harm him in custody. It is submitted that the AL aligned police will want to exact revenge on the appellant whilst he is awaiting trial.
81. I have found that there is an outstanding arrest warrant against the appellant and on that basis I accept to the lower standard that he is likely to be detained on arriving or shortly after arriving in Bangladesh. I find that significant efforts have been made to root out AL supporting police officers. I give weight to the evidence in the CPIN that AL affiliated police are worried about being prosecuted for their own actions and that rogue actors in the police will be nervous about mistreating BNP supporters in custody for fear of repercussions. Higher ranking AL police have been removed. I agree that corrupt officials would have little incentive to cause problems for the appellant given the investigations and arrests of AL supporting officials. A corrupt official would be taking a significant risk to target a BNP supporter on political grounds for no apparent or obvious benefit. Such a person would be taking a risk targeting someone with a strong BNP profile and might well face consequences in terms of losing their employment or arrest.
82. In the article referred to by the appellant in which a leader of the Jubo dal was tortured, I note that the allegations were in respect of criminal activities including guns and that the article itself said that the family off the victim spoke to the army who said would take action against those responsible. The other articles relate to attacks on the home of the AL President’s family and refer to the Al facing widespread hostility and sections of the population rejecting the party’s legacy. The article referred to by the appellant linked to the CPIN on the numbers of AL police officers in the police also refers to BNP leaders busy with extortion and land grabbing. There is nothing in the background material to indicate that members of BNP or Jel are still at risk of persecution.
83. I further find that the appellant is not likely to be detained for very long because I find that the interim government would have no interest in pursuing politically motivated charges (which is what the appellant has been charged with). This is consistent with the background evidence of charges being dropped and political prisoner being released.
84. I also find that the institutions that play a part in the criminal justice system are in the process of reforming particularly the judiciary and that the appellant would be able to take steps to have the charges against him dropped because he would be able to demonstrate that the cases against him were brought for political reasons by a previously corrupt government. He has been able to access a lawyer recently in Bangladesh and was not really able to explain in his oral evidence why he could not instruct a lawyer in respect of the charges and I can see no reason that with the help of remaining family in Bangladesh including his brother who is a BNP leader and BNP connections in Bangladesh and the UK that he would be able to seek legal assistance to follow due process to take these steps .
85. In summary, I find that the risk to the appellant has significantly diminished following the fall of the AL government and the dismantling of AL influence through the e police judiciary and civil society. Having had regard to all the material before me I find to the lower standard that the appellant does not face a real risk of serious harm in Bangladesh on account of being mistreated or tortured in custody.
Article 3 ECHR
86. I turn briefly to Article 3 ECHR in respect of prison conditions. I note that the conditions in Bangladeshi prisons are poor. However, the evidence relied is scant, it relates to 2017 when it was said that improvements were going to be put into place and there is also a reference to political prisoners being treated better than other prisoners. Notwithstanding, the appellant’s individual health problems, I am not persuaded that this evidence is sufficient on its own to persuade me that the appellant would be subject to Article 3 ECHR treatment in respect of prison conditions alone given the high threshold for cases of this nature. It was not submitted that there would be a breach of Article 3 ECHR in respect of a lack of access to medical treatment.
Article 8 ECHR
87. Mr Karim also submitted that there would be very significant obstacles to the appellant’s integration to Bangladesh. He put this in terms of prison conditions as well as the length of the appellant’s absence from Bangladesh and his poor health, and particularly the stigma attached to mental health problems. He also argued that the fact that the appellant is likely to be arrested and to have to go through due process would present very significant obstacles to his integration.
88. In respect of the appellant’s detention I have found that there insufficient risk that he will receive ill-treatment which will amount to treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR.
89. I have made a holistic assessment of the appellant’s circumstances to consider whether he meets the test of “very significant obstacles to integration” on the basis of all of the facts of his case. I assess whether he is enough of an insider to be able to participate in society. Although the appellant has been absent from Bangladesh since 2007 and no doubt Bangladesh has changed a lot in this period, he still retains close family, cultural and social connections to Bangladesh. The appellant does not speak English. He speaks Bengali Sylheti. He has family both in Bangladesh and in the United Kingdom. His mother and two siblings remain in Bangladesh; his mother has a family home there; his UK based brother has visited in the last few years. The appellant previously worked in a business with his brother and has not provided any evidence as to the current status of that business or any reason why he would not be able to rejoin it or set up a new business notwithstanding some health problems. He is in contact with his mother. He is likely to be able to access some financial support from the United Kingdom and the USA. His siblings in the United Kingdom already provide him with some support and there are several of them, all of whom are British citizens. It is not plausible that they would not between them be able to give him a small amount of support. He is familiar with Bangladeshi culture, he has kept abreast of political developments in the country and his friends and associates in the UK are of Bangladeshi origin. I also find that he is likely to be able to access the medication that he requires following his stroke and for diabetes with the help of his family. He is not currently having any active treatment for his mental health problems, according to the latest letter from his GP. The political situation in Bangladesh is unstable but this is the same for all Bangladeshi nationals. I do not find that a short period of incarceration whilst he follows the legal procedures to have his charges dropped would have a long term impact on his ability to participate in society. Having had regard to all of these factors, I find that he would be enough of an insider to participate in Bangladeshi society in terms of understanding how life in the society in that other country is carried on and a capacity to participate in it, so as to have a reasonable opportunity to be accepted there, to be able to operate on a day-to-day basis in that society and to build up within a reasonable time a variety of human relationships to give substance to the individual’s private or family life.
90. The applicant has undoubtedly established a strong private life in the UK by virtue of his length of residence, his close family ties and his many close friends and associates within the BNP. His removal from the UK would interfere with that family life. Turning to the wider Article 8 ECHR balancing exercise, I note firstly that it is in the public interest to enforce immigration control. This appellant has remained unlawfully in the United Kingdom since 2009 and little weight should be afforded to his private life on this basis. I take into account that it has taken a long time to determine his asylum claim because of repeated appeals and set asides. I take into account that he does not satisfy the Immigration Rules in respect of “very significant obstacles” or any other Immigration Rules. The relationships that he does have can be replicated in Bangladesh where he also has family members and BNP associates. As I have stated above he retains close ties to that country both in terms of family, culture and society. The fact that he does not speak English mitigates against him. The fact that he has been financially independent because he has supported by his family is a neutral factor. On the positive side of the balance is his length of residence in the UK. Although he has been absent from Bangladesh for over eighteen years, his continuity of residence in the United Kingdom was broken by an absence in 2015 to 2016 when he lived in Ireland for a year. The appellant is undoubtedly used to living in the UK and it will take him time to adjust. He has chronic health problems and would undoubtedly receive better medical treatment in the United Kingdom than in Bangladesh but I have found that he can access treatment in Bangladesh. Having taken all these factors in the round I find that the balance of proportionality falls in favour of the respondent and the need to maintain immigration control.
Notice of decision
1. The appeal is dismissed under the Refugee Convention.
2. The appeal is dismissed under Article 3 and Article 8 ECHR

R J Owens
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

8 April 2025