Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-002709

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/54745/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

20th May 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BEN KEITH

Between

MH
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Madahi, CB solicitors Ltd
For the Respondent: Ms S Nwchuku, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 19 February 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 Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. This is an appeal against the decision of Ft-T Judge Gordon-Lennox (“the Judge”) promulgated on 17 March 2024. That appeal was against the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department (“SSHD”) dated 19 July 2023 to refuse the Appellant’s protection claim made on 16 November 2021 which is based on his fear of persecution on account of his having been reported to the authorities to be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and fear of being the victim of a revenge killing.
2. The Appellant it is citizen of Egypt and a Sunni Muslim.
3. The Judge sets out the back ground to the case at [11]-[13]. The Appellant first left Egypt in December 2019 and travelled to Lebanon and remained therefore for a little over a year before returning to Egypt. Shortly thereafter, in September 2021, the Appellant left Egypt and travelled to Albania and then through Serbia, Hungary and France before arriving in the UK on 13 November 2021.
4. The Judge heard the Appellant give evidence and considered the papers in the case.
5. The Judge correctly sets out the law on protection and Article 3 ECHR at [17]-[20].
Grounds of Appeal
6. Permission to appeal was granted in relation to one ground. The Judge granting permission said the following:
“The grounds assert the Judge arguably erred in law first by failing to give adequate reasons for his rejection of documents at pages 21-23 of the Appellant’s bundle said to be evidence of his conviction for membership of a terrorist group and second by failing to give adequate reasons for rejecting the Appellant’s claim under Article 3 of the European Convention based on medical grounds.
The Judge rejected the documents relating to the Appellant’s conviction in accordance with the jurisprudence of Tanveer Ahmed (Documents unreliable and forged) Pakistan* [2002] UKIAT 439. He reached this conclusion at paragraph 31 of his decision but it was not until paragraph 38 of his decision that he reached the conclusion the Appellant was not credible. The jurisprudence of Tanveer Ahmed relating to the rejection of documents may be applied once the Appellant has been found not to be credible in respect of other evidence. It is not available to reject documents and then on the basis that documents had been rejected, to support a conclusion the Appellant is not credible. The Upper Tribunal affirmed this in its decision in QC (verification of documents; M’banga duty) [2021] UKUT 33 (IAC).”
Submissions
7. The submissions before me by the Appellant was that the Permission judge was correct. That the Judge had made the decision in the wrong order – effectively that the Judge was wrong to reject the documents at [31] before making a decision on credibility at [38]. The problem identified was a document that purports to show that the Appellant had been convicted of terrorist offences in Egypt.
8. On behalf of the SSHD it was submitted that there was no such error. That the judgment was careful and correct and that there was in fact no error in the order of decision making.

The Judgment
9. The issue in relation to the Appellant’s purported conviction for being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood is set out by the Judge at [31]
“31. The Appellant has provided translated copies of documentation purportedly relating to his conviction and arrest warrant (CB80 - 82, 91 & 92). In relation to the issues in this case and in accordance with Tanveer Ahmed (Documents unreliable and forged) Pakistan * [2002] UKIAT 439 it is for the Appellant to prove the reliability of the documentation such that it can be relied upon and it is for the Tribunal to decide whether reliance should properly be placed on it after looking at all the evidence in the round. The evidence comprises photocopies of the documentation with accompanying translations. The documents do not appear to be on formal or headed paper. There are problems internally in the documentation in that there are parts which are ineligible and this includes the date on one of them (CB92). Another does not have complete date information (CB80). On one the Appellant’s middle names is spelt differently (CB92). The date relating to the case number and felony number are different in CB80 from the other documents. Taking all of the evidence in the round, including that detailed above and the lack of credibility in the Appellant’s evidence, I find that the documentation is not reliable. I attach limited weight to this evidence.”
10. It was argued before me by the Appellant that the judge was wrong to reject this document and then to find at [38] the following:
“38. In conclusion therefore I do not find the Appellant to be a credible witness.”
11. That by doing so the judge had conflated a credibility assessment and document assessment into one.
12. In my judgment this argument is untenable. The Judge provides carefully reasoned analysis of all the evidence in the case and does not fall into error in the way suggested of at all. The judge clearly sets out the evidence at [22]-[27]. Then the Judge assesses the evidence at [28] finding inconsistencies and lack of detail overall. At [29] the Judge finds:
“29. The Appellant has been consistent in general terms about the nature of the incident namely that there were issues with a neighbouring family, he brought a butcher in from elsewhere and this upset the neighbouring family and 20 individuals from that family went to his property and there was an altercation which resulted in him being stabbed. However, there are inconsistencies in the Appellant’s narrative and an overall lack of detail around how the incident unfolded and what lead to him being stab as detailed above, which undermine the Appellant’s credibility. I have found above that I do not consider it reasonably likely that the Appellant has issues with the neighbouring family. Consequently, looking at the evidence in the round I find that it is not reasonably likely that the Appellant’s account in relation to the fight between him and the neighbouring family occurred as claimed or at all.”
13. The Judge then goes on to consider at [30]-[35] whether there is evidence that the Appellant has been convicted. In a careful and considered analysis the Judge finds that the documents and evidence do not demonstrate to the lower standard that the Appellant was convicted. The Judge was careful to examine the documents against the background to the case and rejected the Appellant’s case.
14. The argument that the judge does not make a credibility finding until [38] is simply not right – the judge refers at each step to an assessment of the evidence and credibility. The grant of permission wrongly characterises the careful, detailed and considered analysis of the evidence.
15. Therefore in my judgment there is no error of law.
Notice of Decision
1. The Appeal is dismissed.

Ben Keith

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

12 May 2025