Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2023-005638

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/51687/2022

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On the 11 August 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HIRST

Between

AA
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr K Wood, Immigration Advice Service
For the Respondent: Mrs A Nolan, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 24 June 2025

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 either directly or indirectly. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
Background
1. The Appellant is a Yemeni national who appeals against the Respondent’s decision dated 19 April 2022 refusing his asylum claim. The appeal came before the Upper Tribunal for remaking pursuant to s12(2)(b)(ii) Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, following the decision dated 3 December 2024 finding that there was an error of law in the decision of the First-tier Tribunal.
2. The Appellant claimed asylum on arrival in the UK on 7 July 2020. His claim was that he feared persecution on the basis of his political opinion as a member of the Al-Islah party and as someone who had previously refused to serve in the military.
3. On 17 March 2022 a positive conclusive grounds decision was made, recognising the Appellant as a victim of modern slavery.
4. The Appellant’s asylum claim was refused on 19 April 2022. The Respondent accepted that the Appellant had been a member of Al-Islah, but did not accept he would be at risk of persecution on return. However, the Appellant was granted humanitarian protection on the basis of the security situation in Yemen.
5. The Appellant’s appeal came before the First-tier Tribunal on 2 May 2023 and was dismissed. The Appellant’s appeal against that decision came before the Upper Tribunal on 3 December 2024 and was not opposed by the Respondent. In a decision dated 3 December 2024, the Upper Tribunal found that the First-tier Tribunal had erred at paragraph 30 of its decision by requiring corroboration for the Appellant’s claim, and set the decision aside. The matter was listed for a de novo rehearing in the Upper Tribunal with no findings preserved.
6. The rehearing was originally listed for 19 May 2025 but was adjourned with directions due to the Appellant’s illness and took place on 24 June 2025.
Issues in the appeal
7. As the Appellant has been granted humanitarian protection, the appeal was on asylum grounds only. The parties were agreed that the issues for determination were:
i. Is the Appellant at real risk of persecution as a member of the Al-Islah party?
ii. Is the Appellant at real risk of persecution because of his imputed political opinion due to his refusal to become involved in military operations?
Evidence
8. The Appellant had filed an electronic bundle of 452 pages for the error of law hearing and a supplementary bundle of 17 pages, together with a separate updating country expert report dated 25 April 2025 by Dr Hasan Hafidh.
9. The Appellant gave oral evidence via an Arabic interpreter. He adopted his witness statement dated 15 November 2022 and his supplementary statement dated 28 April 2025.
10. In cross-examination, the Appellant confirmed that he was given a party ID card for Al-Islah but did not participate in party activities. He confirmed that he had lived in Sana’a since 2006 and had been living there when he joined the party. He said that his witness statement, in which he had stated he lived in Albaythaa until 2013, was incorrect.
11. The Appellant was asked about the abduction of his brothers by the Houthis in 2015 and 2021. He said that in 2015 his brother had been asked questions about the Appellant. Initially he said that in his brother had not been asked anything else, but when it was put to him that in his asylum interview he had said his brother had been questioned about being an informer, he confirmed that this was correct. He then said that his brother had not told him the exact details about what he was asked by the Houthis, and that he had not understood the question. In response to further questions, the Appellant said that he had not spoken to his brothers either in 2015 or 2021 about what they were asked about by the Houthis and that his brothers had not told him that they had been asked about him. However, he said it would have been normal for the Houthis to have asked about the Appellant’s whereabouts, because that was a constant question even after his brothers had been released.
12. The Appellant was then asked some questions about his military service. He said that he had been obliged to join the military, which was compulsory; there was no other option. He was asked why he had said in his asylum interview that military service was not compulsory at that time and that he had gone voluntarily. The Appellant replied that taking part in the war was compulsory. He was asked about his evidence in his asylum interview that he had joined the army because he was promised a two year scholarship for academic studies. He said that the army had told him initially that he did not have to take part in military operations, but that later things had changed and he became scared for his life.
13. The Appellant was not re-examined.
Submissions
14. Mrs Nolan relied on the refusal letter dated 19 April 2022. Her core submission was that the Appellant was not credible and had given inconsistent evidence. His witness statement and asylum interview had said that he had moved to Sana’a in 2013, but in oral evidence he had claimed to have lived in Sana’a since 2006. That was important because the Appellant said he had joined the Al-Islah party in 2012 when he was at school. If he had been living in Sana’a at the time, it went to the credibility of his account of how the Houthis became aware that he was a member of the party. She submitted that the Appellant was unable to give an explanation as to why he had been given a party ID card when he joined but he had not used it for anything.
15. Mrs Nolan submitted that the Appellant had not given credible evidence about his brother being abducted in 2015 or the other brother being abducted in 2021. His answers in asylum interview and in oral evidence were inconsistent and his claim that he had not understood the questions in cross-examination lacked credibility. Similarly, he had given inconsistent evidence about his military service, and had said in his witness statement and oral evidence that it had been compulsory but in his asylum interview had said he attended voluntarily. She submitted that even if the Appellant had been of interest in 2015 he would not be of interest to the Houthis now, because his membership of the Al-Islah party did not involve participating in any activities. The Appellant had no political profile whatsoever. He had been a party member in 2012 but 9 years later there was nothing to indicate he would be seen as a party member or supporter, and the country evidence did not indicate that he would be at risk on return. There was also no risk on return arising from his desertion from the army. The expert report showed that there was no forced conscription and no efforts to enlist new soldiers or punish previous deserters.
16. On behalf of the Appellant, Mr Wood submitted that the inconsistencies identified by the Respondent were not sufficiently significant for the Tribunal to reject the Appellant’s account. He accepted that the Appellant’s evidence as to where he had lived before 2013 was not consistent, but invited me not to find that any adverse inference should be drawn. He submitted that in reality the Appellant’s account of his brother’s abduction in 2015 was consistent. That was a clear indication that the Appellant was of adverse interest to the Houthis because of his membership of the Al-Islah party, and paragraph 339K of the Immigration Rules was therefore engaged. Even if the events of 2015 and 2021 were not accepted, the Appellant remained at risk of persecution by the Houthis as a member of the Al-Islah party. It was not enough to say that because the Appellant’s Al-Islah membership card had been issued in 2012, he would not be of adverse interest to the Houthis now. The Respondent had accepted that the Appellant was a member of the Al-Islah party, and the expert evidence was that nothing had altered the Houthis’ attitude towards members of the party. Following HJ (Iran)[2010] UKSC 31, there was a real possibility that the Appellant’s membership would become known and he would be of adverse interest as a result.
17. On the issue of military service, Mr Wood recognised that the picture was confused as to whether the Appellant had been subject to compulsory military service or joined voluntarily, and whether he had been asked to fight or not. The Appellant was not a ‘ghost soldier’; his oral evidence had been that he had joined up but was then left to his own devices.
Discussion, findings and decision
18. As the Appellant’s claim for asylum was made before 28 June 2022, the framework in Nationality and Borders Act 2022 does not apply to his appeal. To succeed in his asylum appeal, the Appellant must demonstrate that he has a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, in this case his actual or imputed political opinion. The burden of proof is upon the Appellant and the standard of proof is the lower standard applicable to protection cases of a “real risk” or “reasonable likelihood”, which is considerably lower than the balance of probabilities.
Risk from political opinion
19. Turning first to the issue of risk arising from the Appellant’s political opinion, it is not in dispute that the Appellant was a member of the Al-Islah party. I find that the Appellant joined in 2012, as reflected by the date on his party membership card. On his own account, I find that the Appellant did not take part in any party activities after he joined; he simply continued to be a member. I also accept that the Appellant expressed on social occasions political views which were opposed to the Houthis but that he did not take part in demonstrations or any other Albertha political or protest activities.
20. When considering the Appellant’s account of events which took place prior to his departure from Yemen, I did not find the Appellant a credible or convincing witness. There were a number of inconsistencies in his oral evidence and discrepancies between his oral evidence and his witness statement and asylum interview. For example, the Appellant’s witness statement dated 15 November 2022 and his asylum interview had been clear that he had lived in Albaythaa until 2013 and then moved to Sana’a, but his oral evidence and his preliminary information questionnaire both stated that he had moved to Sana’a in 2006. That was a relatively trivial issue; I do not accept Mrs Nolan’s suggestion that it went to the heart of the Appellant’s claim about how the Houthis would have found out that the Appellant was an Al-Islah member, because on both accounts he had joined the party and been a party member in Sana’a prior to the Houthis’ invasion of Sana’a in October 2014.
21. However, the Appellant’s evidence on the issue of his brothers’ abduction and interrogation by Houthi militia in 2015 and 2021 was also inconsistent and I found his answers in cross-examination contradictory and evasive. This was a much more significant and important issue, because the Appellant’s case was that his brothers had been abducted, detained and interrogated purely because the Houthis were seeking information as to the Appellant’s whereabouts. The Appellant said in his witness statement that he had been in hiding when the Houthis entered Sana’a and had remained in hiding until he left Sana’a in 2015. His witness statement said that one brother had been abducted in 2015 and the Houthis had questioned his brother about the Appellant’s whereabouts, after which they came to the Appellant’s family’s house and asked for the Appellant. The Appellant’s brother was released after five months on the payment of 1 million rials. In his asylum interview, the Appellant stated that his brother had been accused by the Houthis of being an informer for the government and of inciting other people in the community against the Houthis. In his oral evidence, however, the Appellant said first that his brother had been asked about the Appellant’s whereabouts but not about anything else. When his evidence in interview was put to him, the Appellant said that the question did not make sense, then stated that the question put a lot of pressure on his mental health. He then said that he did not know the details about what happened between his brother and the Houthis, and that his brother had called him but not told him what the Houthis had asked him about because he was scared the telephone lines were monitored. He was then asked what his brother was asked about and said he could not remember. I found the Appellant’s evidence on what was a significant part of his asylum claim inconsistent and unconvincing.
22. Similar issues apply to the Appellant’s evidence as to the abduction of his other brother in 2021. The Appellant said in his asylum interview that his brother had been abducted in January 2021 from the family home, and that he had been tortured and asked about the Appellant’s whereabouts. He had been released a week before the asylum interview (i.e. around 24 March 2021). In cross-examination the Appellant stated that his brother had never told him what he had been questioned about. When he was asked how he knew his brother had been asked about his whereabouts if he did not know what his brother had been questioned about, he said that it was a constant question, even when his brother had been released; it was a normal procedure for his brother to be questioned about where the Appellant was now.
23. I have also given careful consideration to the documentary evidence, including the expert reports by Dr Hafidh and in particular his updating report dated 25 April 2025. Dr Hafidh’s expertise was not challenged by the Respondent and I accept that he is appropriately qualified to provide expert evidence both about the political situation in Yemen and the issue of military service (which I address below).
24. Dr Hafidh’s view was that the Appellant’s account of his brothers being detained and tortured on account of the Appellant’s membership of Al-Islah was plausible. He refers to the evidence of aggressive and harsh responses by the Houthis to demonstrations and the detention of protestors, civil society activists and journalists, as well as the widespread evidence of violence and human rights violations by Houthi forces against civilians. He also refers to a death sentence handed down to 16 Yemenis for collaborating with opponents of the Houthis including the Yemeni government and Saudi-led Arab coalition.
25. However, considering the evidence as a whole, I do not accept the Appellant’s account of his brothers’ abduction and detention by the Houthis in 2015 and 2021. On the Appellant’s own account, he had not been an active member of the Al-Islah party nor carried out any activities for the party; at most he was a name on a membership list. Whilst I accept Dr Hafidh’s evidence that the Houthis have targeted activists, journalists and protestors in recent years, his evidence does not suggest that an individual such as the Appellant, without any sort of public profile, would have been targeted in 2015 or 2021. The Appellant was not participating in protests or active opposition to the Houthis and could not be described as a civil society activist. On his own account he was in hiding from October 2014 onwards. I therefore do not accept that he was a person of such significant interest to the Houthis that they would seek him out or detain his brother for a lengthy period in 2015 purely in order to obtain information about the Appellant’s whereabouts. Nor do I accept that the Appellant’s brother would have been abducted without any preamble or enquiries made as to the Appellant’s whereabouts, or without the family experiencing any other problems due to the Appellant’s political membership. The Appellant shifted position in his oral evidence but eventually his evidence was that his brother had not discussed his interrogation with him. If the Appellant’s brother had been taken, detained and tortured for a period of five months, purely as an attempt to obtain information about the Appellant’s whereabouts, and only been released upon the payment of a substantial bribe which required the family to raise money from relatives, I do not accept that the Appellant would not have discussed that with his brother. I do not accept even to the lower standard that the Appellant’s brother was abducted or tortured in 2015 because of the Appellant’s membership of Al-Islah.
26. Nor do I accept that the Appellant’s other brother was abducted and detained in January 2021. I do not accept that the Appellant was a person of interest; on his own account by 2021 he had been an inactive member of the Al-Islah party for nine years but had done nothing to attract adverse attention. Indeed, on the Appellant’s account for most of the period from October 2014 onwards he had been either in hiding, in the military, in Saudi Arabia or (from August 2018) en route to the UK. He does not describe any other adverse attention which he or his family received from the Houthis between 2015 and 2021. I do not accept that if the Appellant were a person of interest, the Houthis would have waited so long to take further action to establish his whereabouts; nor was there any obvious trigger for them to take action in 2021, as the Appellant had on his own account left Yemen several years before. Even accepting Dr Hafidh’s evidence and noting the violent and precarious security situation in Yemen at the time, I do not accept that the Appellant’s profile was one which would bring him to the attention of the authorities six years after his other brother’s abduction, particularly as the Appellant’s family had not experienced any problems with the Houthi authorities during that time. The Appellant accepted in oral evidence that his brother had not discussed his interrogation in 2021; if the Appellant were the reason for the abduction as he claims, I do not accept that he would not have discussed the event with his brother. I do not accept that the Appellant’s brother was abducted or tortured in 2021 as he claims.
27. Considering the evidence as a whole, I do not accept that the Appellant was a person of adverse interest on the basis of his political opinion prior to his departure from Yemen, and paragraph 339K of the Immigration Rules does not apply given my findings above.
28. However, I must also consider whether the Appellant would be at risk on return as a member of Al-Islah, notwithstanding my finding that he has not previously come to the adverse attention of the Houthis. Although there is no current prospect of the Appellant being returned to Yemen as he has been granted humanitarian protection on the basis of the situation in Yemen, I must consider the hypothetical situation if he were to be returned at present.
29. I have also considered Dr Hafidh’s view that membership of the Al-Islah party would be “very likely” to result in adverse attention from the Houthi militia, because of the history of Houthi opposition to Al-Islah and the significance of the party as part of the former Yemeni government and an indicator of Saudi influence in the country.
30. Dr Hafidh does not however identify how the Appellant’s party membership might come to the attention of the Houthi militia. The Appellant was not formerly an active political member, activist or protestor and has not engaged in sur place activity. On the evidence before me I do not consider that on return to Yemen he would behave differently. However, it is accepted that the Appellant was a party member, and he has a physical party membership card with his photograph and name with the date of issue (corresponding to 18 October 2012). I consider that if he were questioned, the Appellant could not be expected to lie about the fact of his party membership.
31. I have considered the CPINs (‘Yemen: Security situation’ and ‘Yemen: humanitarian situation’, both March 2025). Both indicate that the internal situation in Yemen has deteriorated significantly in recent years and that security and humanitarian incidents continue to occur despite the truce in 2022. The first CPIN indicates at §5 that internal relocation is unlikely to be reasonable due to restrictions on movement and “the risk of ill-treatment at checkpoints”, and refers to a 2023 USSD report which refers to checkpoints on major roads at which travellers are subjected to physical harassment, extortion, theft or kidnapping for ransom. At 13.1.3 the CPIN refers to a report indicating that freedom of movement is particularly heavily constrained in closed areas and centres of control of the main parties including Sana’a. The latter CPIN also confirms that there are significant movement restrictions in areas controlled by each party.
32. On the low standard of proof, and on the evidence before me including the CPINs and Dr Hafidh’s report, I conclude that there is a real risk or reasonable likelihood that the Appellant would come to the attention of the Houthi authorities either within Sana’a or whilst travelling to other places, via checkpoints and other restrictions on movement. I also consider that there is a real risk that if the Appellant were to be stopped at a checkpoint his political membership would come to light either through checking his papers or through questioning. I also consider that there is a real risk that he would be subject to questioning at the airport on return to Yemen. I accept Dr Hafidh’s evidence that as a member of Al-Islah there is a real risk that the Appellant will be targeted by the Houthi authorities, notwithstanding that he is not a high-profile member or activist.
33. I therefore accept that the Appellant faces a real risk of persecution on the grounds of political opinion on return.
Military service
34. Given my conclusion on the first part of the appeal, it is not necessary for me to address this aspect of the appeal in detail.
35. I did not find the Appellant’s evidence as to his military service consistent. In particular, there were significant discrepancies in his account of whether his service was compulsory or voluntary, how long he served, what his responsibilities were, how much training he was given, and his departure.
36. However, even taking the Appellant’s account at its highest, and proceeding on the basis that he deserted from compulsory military service when he was required to participate in military action, I do not consider that the evidence demonstrates even to the lower standard that the Appellant would be at risk on return as a result.
37. Dr Hafidh’s report indicates that formal conscription was not formally implemented between 2012 and 2018, but that there was recruitment of a large number of fighters in late 2015. He describes the army during this period as “very informal, fragmented and fluid” and there were frequent desertions, with some avoiding active combat and simply leaving the army in the way that the Appellant describes. However, Dr Hafidh states that the law punishing desertion was not enforced due to the sheer numbers of deserters. Most significantly, Dr Hafidh states that there is currently no forced conscription and no efforts to punish soldiers who previously deserted. He notes that because of the high numbers of desertions and defections to the Houthis it would be very difficult to actually enforce laws punishing desertions; the issue is further complicated by the existence of ‘ghost soldiers’ who were registered but did not in fact exist. Dr Hafidh identifies that there might be a risk from pro-government forces if it were assumed that the Appellant deserted to join the Houthi militia, but I consider that to be speculative. On the evidence I conclude that even to the lower standard, the Appellant would not face a real risk of persecution on return to Yemen as a former soldier or former deserter.

Notice of Decision

The Appellant’s appeal is allowed on asylum grounds.

L Hirst

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

31 July 2025