UI-2023-004268

• Status of case: Unreported
• Hearing date: 16 Sep 2025
• Promulgation date: 2 Dec 2025
• Publication date: 17 Dec 2025
• Last updated on: 17 Dec 2025

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM
CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2023-004268


First-tier Tribunal No: PA/50742/2023
IA/00339/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 2 December 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MANDALIA

Between

SJ
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Appellant
and

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent
Representation
For the Appellant: Mr T Jebb, counsel instructed by Nelson Singleton Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mrs R Arif, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer


Heard at Royal Courts of Justice (Belfast) on 16 September 2025
Decision and Reasons
Anonymity
This appeal concerns a claim for international protection. 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.”
Introduction
1. The appellant is a national of Somalia. He left Somalia in October 2015 and arrived in the United Kingdom on 21 October 2021. He claimed asylum on 15 November 2021. The claim was refused by the respondent for reasons set out in a decision dated 24 January 2023. The respondent accepted the appellant fears that he will be at risk upon return to Somalia for a convention reason. That is, the appellant’s claim is based upon the appellant’s imputed political opinion and membership of a particular social group, namely the minority, ‘Yaher Slolah’ clan. However the respondent rejected the appellant’s claim that his brother had killed a member of the Sheikhal clan and other aspects of the appellant’s claim leading to his departure from Somalia. The respondent did not accept the appellant has a well founded fear of persecution and having considered the relevant country guidance, concluded the appellant will not be at risk upon return to Somalia.
2. The appellant’s appeal against the respondent’s decision was dismissed by First-tier Tribunal (“FtT”) Judge Rea (“the FtT judge”) for reasons set out in a decision dated 4 September 2023. The FtT judge recorded that the sole issue was the credibility of the appellant’s account. The judge heard evidence from the appellant and found that the appellant is not a credible witness noting the inconsistencies in the appellant’s account of events throughout. The judge concluded the appellant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution and will not face a real risk of serious harm on return to Somalia.
3. The appellant claimed the decision of the FtT was vitiated by errors of law. The appellant was granted permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on 2 October 2023 by FtT Judge Seelhoff. He said:
“2. The grounds assert that the Judge erred in failing to consider Humanitarian Protection grounds in the context of OA (Somalia) Somalia CG [2022] UKUT 00033 (IAC) and MOJ & Ors (Return to Mogadishu) Somalia CG [2014] UKUT 00442 (IAC) after dismissing the substantive asylum claim with adverse credibility findings.
3. The issue raised was clearly five in the evidence given that in his statement the Appellant said; “I have no contact with my family members in Somalia at all. My mother is still in Kenya and I spoke to her in August 2021. I fear that if I am returned to Somalia, I will have no support and I will be placed in an International Displaced Persons camp.”
4. This point is clearly arguable given the nature of the guidance in those cases and permission to appeal is granted on all grounds raised.”
4. The appeal was heard by Upper Tribunal Judge Lane on 29 May 2024. At that hearing the Senior Presenting Officer accepted the FtT judge had fallen into error. The FtT judge had rejected the appellant’s account of past events in Somalia but had not considered the risk on return. In a decision issued on 9 August 2024, Upper Tribunal Judge Lane said:
“I agree that, whilst the judge may have rejected the appellant’s claim to have a subjective fear of returning to Somalia, he failed to consider whether, on the facts as he found them, the appellant faces an objectively-assessed, real risk on return. I find that the judge’s failure to assess risk on return constitutes a serious error of law which requires me to set aside the Firsttier Tribunal’s decision and to remake the decision following a resumed hearing in the Upper Tribunal. The findings of fact of the First-tier Tribunal (set out in its decision at [7-12]) have not been challenged and are preserved accordingly.”
5. Upper Tribunal Judge Lane made directions for the decision in the appeal to be remade in the Upper Tribunal. It is against that background that the hearing was listed before me. This decision must be read alongside the error of law decision of Upper Tribunal Judge Lane.
The Hearing of the Appeal Before Me
6. The appellant did not attend the hearing listed before me. Having taken instructions from those instructing him, Mr Jebb confirmed that the appellant has been informed of, and was aware of the hearing listed before me. At 11am, Mr Jebb confirmed that his instructing solicitors had unsuccessfully tried to contact the appellant both directly and through a friend of his. They were unable to offer any explanation for the appellant’s absence. Mr Jebb applied for an adjournment on the basis that the Tribunal would be assisted by evidence from the appellant. The application was opposed by Mrs Arif.
7. I note that Upper Tribunal Judge Lane directed in his error of law decision that the parties may adduce additional evidence for the resumed hearing provided any witness statement or other document is filed at the Upper Tribunal and served on the other party no less than 10 days before the resumed hearing. On 2 December 2024, the appellant’s representatives filed an updated consolidated bundle comprising of 128 pages. It includes an unsigned statement by the appellant that is dated 2 December 2024.
8. I had regard to Rule 38 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008. An updated consolidated bundle has been filed and served on behalf of the appellant. There is however no explanation, let alone reasonable explanation for the appellant’s failure to attend the hearing of the appeal. I am satisfied that the appellant has had notice of the hearing before me and that it is in the interests of justice and in accordance with the over-riding objective to proceed with the hearing of the appeal in the appellant’s absence.
9. Mr Jebb invited me to consider the evidence that is set out in the statement of the appellant that was before the FtT. He submits the focus of the judge was upon the credibility of the appellant, whereas I should now consider the generalised risk the appellant will be exposed to, on return. He referred me to the respondent’s CPIN: Mogadishu: Al Shabab and the security situation, Somalia, July 2025 which states:
“7.1.3 The EUAA Focus 2025 further noted:
‘Mogadishu is inhabited largely by Hawiye from the clans Abgaal, Habar Gedir and Murosade. Besides, certain minority groups such as Reer Hamar are traditional inhabitants of the city … Moreover, members from many other Somali clans reside in Mogadishu as students, professionals, businesspeople or government workers … Mogadishu is “not as segregated by clan as other areas of Somalia”. Still, clan membership is important. Hawiye clan holds the most powerful positions … Minority group members and members of other clans face exclusion and discrimination. … Particularly in the oldest quarters Shangani and Hamar Weyne, Reer Hamar - which consist of many small groups … have their ancestral homes …’
…
9.4.3 The NL MOFA report 2023 commenting on groups at risk of forced recruitment by Al-Shabab noted,
‘… there was forced recruitment by al-Shabab particularly in areas under its direct control. Forced recruitment also took place outside these areas, but to a considerably lesser extent. In the areas controlled by al-Shabab, underage boys were particularly at risk of forced recruitment … the sources do not provide a clear picture as to which (minority) clans were at especial risk. Most sources state that in areas under its control, al-Shabab played on local tensions between populations by telling minority groups that joining al-Shabab would put them in a more powerful position… if a minority clan did not voluntarily meet the imposed quota, coercive measures could follow. Locally stronger clans, by contrast, could pay al-Shabab if they were faced with recruitment quotas so that they did not have to fulfil them. This option was less available to clans with fewer financial resources, which meant that their members were at greater risk of forced recruitment.’
10. In reply Mrs Arif adopted the respondent’s decision to refuse the claim for international protection. She submits the appellant has been found not to be a credible witness. He is accepted to be from a minority clan and there is no evidence that he cannot seek assistance from his clan. Mrs Arif referred to the country guidance set out in OA (Somalia) (CG) [2022] UKUT 00033 in which the Upper Tribunal said, at [241], that as a general rule, minority clans may struggle to offer significant levels of practical assistance. However the Tribunal went on to say that there is no evidence to support the view that a member of a minority clan would be unable to act as a guarantor, whether formal or informal when considering the potential for a minority clan to provide such assistance, particularly in the context of accommodation and employment. Mrs Arif submits that here the appellant has the potential for support from his family. In is screening interview, the appellant referred to a younger brother [YJ], who was said to be “currently living in Mogadishu”. Mrs Arif submits there is no reason why the appellant should have lost contact with his younger brother as he claims. It is, Mrs Arif submits, unclear whether the appellant’s mother has left Somalia and the appellant’s claim that he has no contact with his family and no-one to turn to for support is not credible. There is no reason why the appellant cannot turn to his family upon return to Somalia. Mrs Arif submits the appellant is likely to be in contact with his mother and brother and that he will not be at risk upon return.
The Preserved Findings of the Upper Tribunal
11. It is also useful to record the preserved findings that were set out at paragraphs [7] to [12] of the decision of the FtT:
“7. I find that the Appellant is not credible. I have reached this conclusion for the following reasons.
8. The account the Appellant has given throughout the asylum process has not been consistent. In his screening interview and PIQ statement the Appellant stated that his brother killed a member of the Sheekhaal clan. In his PIQ statement he claimed that the killing was accidental. Subsequently in the asylum interview the Appellant claimed that his brother killed two men. In his response to question 62 in this interview the Appellant claimed that his brother had a fight with two men who later came to his home where they raped his wife. The Appellant’s brother then made a knife and found the men and stabbed both of them. At the hearing the Appellant claimed that his brother deliberately killed one man who had raped his wife and accidentally stabbed another who came to his aid. When this inconsistency was put to the Appellant at the hearing he explained that it was due to a misunderstanding with the interpreter at the screening interview. I note that when the Appellant was asked at the end of the screening interview whether he understood all the questions he replied that he did and he did not take up the invitation to change any of his answers. There is no record of him making any comment about not understanding the interpreter. I further note that the PIQ statement was prepared with the assistance of the Appellant’s legal adviser. Furthermore, at the beginning of the asylum interview the Appellant was asked if he was content with the contents of the screening interview and PIQ statement and said that some dates were wrong. The Appellant therefore did not take the opportunity at the end of the screening interview, in his PIQ statement, or at the beginning of the asylum interview to correct his account that his brother had killed not one but two men. I find that this is a significant inconsistency to which I attach significant weight.
9. The failure to mention the second man killed has the added significance that the appellant now claims that this man was a member of the Darood clan and that therefore he is at risk of retribution from not only the Sheekhaal clan but also the Darood. I consider that this provides further reason why the Appellant might have been expected to mention this man at the earliest opportunity.
10. The Appellant claims that his father was killed by Al-Shabaab on 25 May 2015 and that the following day Al-Shabaab came to his home and told his mother that they would return to take the Appellant and his brother away with them to fight. The Appellant claims that as a result he and his brother fled to a different town. The Appellant made no mention of Al-Shabaab in his screening interview. In his PIQ statement he mentioned that they killed his father and threatened to kill him. He made no mention of the threat to recruit him until the asylum interview. On the Appellant’s own account he remained in Somalia until 5 October 2015 and does not describe any further .trouble from Al-Shabaab during the period from 26 May until 5 October. According to his account it was the killing of the two men by his brother which caused him to flee to Ethiopia and not any further attention by Al-Shabaab. I find that the failure to mention Al-Shabaab in the screening interview is significant as is the failure to mention the attempt at recruitment in the PIQ statement prepared with the advantage of legal advice. I attach some weight to this inconsistency as damaging to the Appellant’s overall credibility.
11. The Appellant arrived in London on 21 October 2021 and travelled to Belfast where he claimed asylum on 15 November 2021 . When asked about this at the hearing he stated that he was with an agent and did not know where he was, his intention being to travel on to the USA. The Appellant had previously been granted asylum in Italy and from there had travelled to Germany to claim asylum when he was deported back to Italy. He travelled again to France and Germany and was again returned to Italy, I consider that the Appellant from his own account was aware of the asylum system and I do not consider that he has given a reasonable explanation for his failure to claim asylum immediately upon arrival in the UK. I find that this conduct falls within section 8(2)(c) of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 and is damaging to the Appellant’s credibility.
12. I further find that the Appellant failed to take advantage of a reasonable opportunity to remain in Italy where he had been granted asylum and which is a safe country. I find that this conduct falls within section 8(4) of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 and is damaging to the Appellant’s credibility.”
Decision
12. The appellant has appealed under s82(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 against the decision of the respondent to refuse his claim for asylum and humanitarian protection. The appellant claims to be a refugee whose removal from the UK would breach the United Kingdom’s obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention.
13. The appellant bears the burden of establishing there are substantial grounds for believing, more simply expressed as a ‘real risk’, that he is outside of his country of nationality, because of a well-founded fear of persecution for a refugee convention reason and he is unable or unwilling, because of such fear, to avail himself of the protection of that country.
14. As I have already noted, on 2 December 2024, the appellant’s representatives filed an updated consolidated bundle comprising of 128 pages. It includes an unsigned statement by the appeal that is dated 2 December 2024.
15. The appellant claims he is from the ‘Yaxar Saleh Tribe’. That is accepted by the respondent (referred to by the respondent as the Yaher Slolah’ clan). The appellant claims that his parents were separated and that he lived in Jilib with his mother and brother. He claims that his mother fled to Yemen, but had to return to Somalia and moved to Mogadishu. He claims she was then tracked down by members of the Darood and Shiikjall majority tribes and she had to flee to Kenya. He claims, at paragraph [5] of the statement that as far as he is aware, his mother and his only brother are in a refugee camp in Kenya. He claims the last time he spoke with his mother was in August 2021. The appellant states he has been away from Somalia for over 9 years and that he has limited education and no work experience. He claims he has no family in Somalia and no access to money. He fears that if returned to Somalia he will be placed in an international displaced persons camp. He claims he will not be able to obtain accommodation because he has no money, and no family or friends to call upon.  
16. I note the appellant gave his evidence before the FtT with the assistance of a Somali interpreter. Quite apart from the fact that the statement is unsigned, the witness statement does not appear to comply with the requirement that the body of the witness statement must, if practicable, be in the witness’s own words, and that if drafted in English and that is a language not understood by the witness, it must include a signed and dated attestation by both the witness and the person who interpreted it that the statement has been read back to the witness in a language they understand and that it accurately reflects their evidence. Furthermore, the appellant has not attended the hearing listed before me and there has been no opportunity for the appellant’s evidence to be tested in cross-examination. This plainly affects the weight I am able to attach to the statement and evidence of the appellant.
17. The appellant’s unsigned statement only serves to re-enforce the fact that the appellant is not a credible witness. I do not accept his evidence that his mother and brother are in a refugee camp in Kenya. In the screening interview completed on 28 November 2021 shortly after the appellant’s arrival in the UK, the appellant was quite clear (Q. 1.21) that he has a younger brother who was born in May 2009 who is currently in Mogadishu, and that he had last had contact with him “two months ago” (i.e. August / September 2021). When the appellant was interviewed on 24 November 2022, the appellant claimed (Q.36) that the last he was aware was that his mother and brother were going to Kenya. He confirmed (Q.38) that they were in Mogadishu, going out to Kenya. He claimed (Q.39 and Q.70) they had been in Mogadishu for three weeks. He confirmed (Q.71) that his mother and brother had spent approximately four years in Yemen before returning to Mogadishu, and then leaving for Kenya. He again confirmed (Q.72) that he last had contact with his family about two months before his arrival in the UK.
18. The appellant’s claim in his screening interview that his brother was in Mogadishu, is difficult to reconcile with the appellant’s subsequent claim that his mother and brother were planning to leave Mogadishu for Kenya. If, as the appellant claims, his mother and brother had told him when they last spoke in August/September 2021 that they were leaving for Kenya, it is not credible, even in the context of a screening interview, that the appellant would not have said his brother is living in Kenya or that he was intending to move to Kenya. The appellant claimed (Q.97 and 98) that when his mother and brother were in Mogadishu that they had received threats from the family who were looking for the appellant and that is why they fled to Kenya. The appellant’s claim that he is at risk of retribution from the Sheekhaal and Darood clans has been rejected and there is a preserved finding to that effect. It follows there is no credible reason for the appellant’s brother and mother to have left Mogadishu. I find the appellant’s mother and brother remain in Mogadishu.
19. I turn then to consider the risk upon return. As far as relevant to this appeal, in MOJ & Ors (Return to Mogadishu) Somalia CG [2014] UKUT 00442 (IAC) the Upper Tribunal found as set out in its headnote:
“(ii) Generally, a person who is “an ordinary civilian” (i.e. not associated with the security forces; any aspect of government or official administration or any NGO or international organisation) on returning to Mogadishu after a period of absence will face no real risk of persecution or risk of harm such as to require protection under Article 3 of the ECHR or Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive. In particular, he will not be at real risk simply on account of having lived in a European location for a period of time of being viewed with suspicion either by the authorities as a possible supporter of Al Shabaab or by Al Shabaab as an apostate or someone whose Islamic integrity has been compromised by living in a Western country.
(iii) There has been durable change in the sense that the Al Shabaab withdrawal from Mogadishu is complete and there is no real prospect of a re-established presence within the city. That was not the case at the time of the country guidance given by the Tribunal in AMM.
…
(vi) There is no real risk of forced recruitment to Al Shabaab for civilian citizens of Mogadishu, including for recent returnees from the West.
(vii) A person returning to Mogadishu after a period of absence will look to his nuclear family, if he has one living in the city, for assistance in re-establishing himself and securing a livelihood. Although a returnee may also seek assistance from his clan members who are not close relatives, such help is only likely to be forthcoming for majority clan members, as minority clans may have little to offer.
(viii) The significance of clan membership in Mogadishu has changed. Clans now provide, potentially, social support mechanisms and assist with access to livelihoods, performing less of a protection function than previously. There are no clan militias in Mogadishu, no clan violence, and no clan based discriminatory treatment, even for minority clan members.
(ix) If it is accepted that a person facing a return to Mogadishu after a period of absence has no nuclear family or close relatives in the city to assist him in re-establishing himself on return, there will need to be a careful assessment of all of the circumstances. These considerations will include, but are not limited to:
• circumstances in Mogadishu before departure;
• length of absence from Mogadishu;
• family or clan associations to call upon in Mogadishu;
• access to financial resources;
• prospects of securing a livelihood, whether that be employment or self employment;
• availability of remittances from abroad;
• means of support during the time spent in the United Kingdom;
• why his ability to fund the journey to the West no longer enables an appellant to secure financial support on return.
(x) Put another way, it will be for the person facing return to explain why he would not be able to access the economic opportunities that have been produced by the economic boom, especially as there is evidence to the effect that returnees are taking jobs at the expense of those who have never been away.
(xi) It will, therefore, only be those with no clan or family support who will not be in receipt of remittances from abroad and who have no real prospect of securing access to a livelihood on return who will face the prospect of living in circumstances falling below that which is acceptable in humanitarian protection terms.
(xii) The evidence indicates clearly that it is not simply those who originate from Mogadishu that may now generally return to live in the city without being subjected to an Article 15(c) risk or facing a real risk of destitution. On the other hand, relocation in Mogadishu for a person of a minority clan with no former links to the city, no access to funds and no other form of clan, family or social support is unlikely to be realistic as, in the absence of means to establish a home and some form of ongoing financial support there will be a real risk of having no alternative but to live in makeshift accommodation within an IDP camp where there is a real possibility of having to live in conditions that will fall below acceptable humanitarian standards.”
20. In OA (Somalia) (CG) [2022] UKUT 00033, the Upper Tribunal confirmed that the country guidance given in paragraph [407] of MOJ (replicated at paragraphs (ii) to (x) of the headnote to MOJ) remains applicable. The Upper Tribunal gave additional guidance regarding the careful assessment that is required where a person faces return to Mogadishu after a period of absence and with no nuclear family or close relatives to assist on return. I have carefully considered the respondent’s CPIN that is referred to by Mr Jebb and there is nothing in the passages that he refers to that undermine what is set out in the country guidance as far as the appeal before me is concerned.
21. The appellant’s mother and brother remain in Mogadishu and there is no credible reason why the appellant should have lost contact with them. The appellant left Somalia in October 2015 and travelled through a number of countries (Ethiopia, Sudan, Libya, Italy, Germany and France). During that time the appellant’s account is that his mother and brother left Somalia and lived in Yemen for a number of years before returning to Mogadishu. Throughout that lengthy period and the geographical distances that separated the appellant from his mother and brother, they were plainly able to maintain contact. The appellant’s own account is that he spoke to his mother and brother when they had returned to Mogadishu about two months prior to his arrival in the UK. There is simply no credible reason given by the appellant as to why and how be was able to maintain contact with the immediate members of his family previously, but not since his arrival in the UK.
22. The appellant is for all intents and purposes an “ordinary civilian’. I find, as set out in the country guidance that that he will not be at real risk simply on account of having lived in a European location for a period of time, of being viewed with suspicion either by the authorities as a possible supporter of Al Shabaab or by Al Shabaab as an apostate or someone whose Islamic integrity has been compromised by living in a Western country. I find that the appellant’s immediate family remain in Mogadishu and he will be able to look to “his nuclear family” for assistance in re-establishing himself and securing a livelihood. There are no clan militias in Mogadishu, no clan violence, and no clan based discriminatory treatment, even for minority clan members. The appellant has failed to explain why he would not be able to access the economic opportunities that have been produced by the economic boom, especially as there is evidence to the effect that returnees are taking jobs at the expense of those who have never been away. The country guidance confirms that the evidence indicates clearly that it is not simply those who originate from Mogadishu that may now generally return to live in the city without being subjected to an Article 15(c) risk or facing a real risk of destitution. The appellant will have the benefit of the support available to him from his mother and brother.
23. It follows that in my judgment the appellant has failed to establish his claim, even to the lower standard and the appeal must be dismissed. No separate Article 3 and 8 claims are identified, evidenced and pursued by the appellant before me.
Notice of Decision
24. The appellant’s appeal against the respondent’s decision of 24 January 2023 to refuse his asylum, humanitarian protection and Article 3 ECHR claims is dismissed.

V. Mandalia
Upper Tribunal Judge Mandalia

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber


14 November 2025