Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-000328
First-tier Tribunal Number: PA/54025/2022
IA/11327/2022

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

14th July 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LANE

Between

OM
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr Jebb
For the Respondent: Mr Mullen, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Royal Courts of Justice (Belfast) on 1 July 2025

DECISION AND REASONS
1. By a decision dated 6 December 2025, the Upper Tribunal (Upper Tribunal Judges Rintoul and Mandalia) set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal. The Upper Tribunal preserved the First-tier Tribunal’s findings at [26] (‘Considering all of the evidence in the round I reject the appellant's claim as to events in Somalia in its entirety. I reject his claim that his brother was in Al-Shabab and that he was involved in killing their father. I am not satisfied that the appellant was threatened by Al-Shabab or that he was detained or shot by Al-Shabab as claimed.’) and directed that the resumed hearing in the Upper Tribunal should determine the ‘discrete issue of whether the appellant will be at risk upon return on account of his HIV positive status.’ Following the making of a transfer order and a resumed hearing at Belfast on 1 July 2025, I now remake the decision.
Resumed hearing
2. The appellant gave oral evidence, adopting his witness statement of 23 June 2025. He was cross examined by Mr Mullen, Senior Presenting Officer who appeared for the Secretary of State. The appellant explained that he had been diagnosed with HIV whilst in Italy in 2013. He said that he had told two individuals whom he considered ‘friends’ about his condition but they had told others in his home area of Somalia.
Submissions
3. In his submissions, Mr Mullen said that the appellant would undoubtedly face problems in Somalia on account of his medical condition but there was no evidence that any societal discrimination he may experience would cross the very high threshold of Article 3 ECHR. Mr Mullen did not seek to question the credibility of the oral evidence of the appellant given at the resumed hearing.
4. Mr Jebb, for the appellant, submitted that the background material regarding Somalia indicated that there was a real risk that the appellant would suffer Article 3 ECHR ill treatment on return to Somalia. The appellant would face not only discrimination but also the risk of physical abuse. He urged me to allow the appeal on Article 3 ECHR grounds.
Discussion
5. The appellant relies on an article in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health which states that those suffering HIV in Somalia experience ‘a widespread stigma that manifested in the participants being chased away from home. Despite the stigma from their family members, these people received even stronger stigmatization from their communities, a scenario well-reported in previous studies [15]. They could not easily rent houses or had to pay higher rental fees. Loss of work or the sheer snub of their merchandise, for those involved in small-scale trading, by those who knew of their HIV status led to selective disclosure to avoid stigma.’ I also note that the same article records that the same individuals ‘They were always willing to go an extra mile to secure a good life for themselves. However, the external HIV stigma impacted their access to care. They faced challenges in their homes and at work which compelled them to seek support from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or close family members. This stigma often affected their disclosure to the wider community due to the uncertainty of the repercussions, leading to a life of extreme loneliness and financial difficulties.’
6. In my opinion, the article reinforces Mr Mullen’s submission. Those suffering from HIV do not have an easy life in Somalia but equally there is nothing in the article cited which clearly indicates that they face Article 3 ECHR ill treatment. Tellingly, the article records of the seven respondents interviewed that all ‘had been stigmatized at some point in their life with diagnosed HIV’ [my emphasis] indicating sporadic difficulties rather than consistent ill treatment. Moreover, having to pay higher rent for accommodation, whilst no doubt distressing, is not evidence of Article 3 ECHR ill treatment. The article also details the sources of support for sufferers: ‘We found that there were two main sources of support; close family members and NGOs. The NGOs provided money for food, rent, or clothing. They also provided peer support services where the participants could meet and share their experiences of living with HIV. The close family members commonly cited by the participants were mainly parents, particularly mothers, although one female participant said her main source of financial support and moral support was her father. Some of the participants received material support from their relatives in the diaspora.’ There is no obvious reason why the appellant could not obtain support from the same sources. Further, the difficulty most often cited in the background material encountered by those with HIV is loneliness and isolation. It is the appellant’s evidence that his wife and mother are in Kenya. He has given no reasons why they could not return to Somalia to help to care for him.
7. I have read all the relevant background material carefully, including those parts to which Mr Jebb directed me. I find that the risk of the appellant being assaulted on account of his medical condition is not so great as to amount to a real risk or reasonable likelihood of treatment which would breach Article 3 ECHR. I accept that he may become isolated and encounter discrimination but nothing in the evidence or background material indicates that this would be so severe as to cross the Article 3 ECHR threshold. I make those findings on the basis that the appellant can reasonably expect the support of family who can relocate to Somalia or others in the Somali diaspora.
8. In the circumstances, I remake the decision dismissing the appellant’s appeal on asylum and human rights (Article 3 ECHR) grounds.
Notice of Decision
I remake the decision and dismiss the appellant’s appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision dated 16 September 2022 on asylum and human rights (Article 3 ECHR) grounds.

C. N. Lane

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

Dated: 8 July 2025