Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-005008

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/ 56710/2023
LP/01403/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 7th of January 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE NAIK KC

Between

HB
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Abedian, Counsel
For the Respondent: Mr Terrell, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 1 December 2025

DECISION AND REASONS

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.

Introduction
1. This is an appeal by the Appellant against the determination of the First-tier Tribunal Judge Mark Eldridge (the Judge) who dismissed the Appellant’s protection claim in a decision dated 6 July 2024.
2. Permission to appeal was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Loughran.
Background Summary
3. The Appellant is a Tunisian national born on 31 August 1979. Her claim is based on a fear of gender-based violence from her in-laws. From 2002 to 2021, the Appellant’s husband and in-laws exploited her for prostitution and subjected her to domestic abuse. A high level of violence and threats were used to control her. Her in-laws had political connections to the state and, when she tried to escape exploitation, allegations were made about her which led to her being arrested by the Tunisian authorities. The Appellant was sent to the United Kingdom, she believes for further exploitation, and she arrived on 18 May 2021. She took the opportunity to escape and subsequently claimed asylum. The Appellant underwent an asylum screening interview on 26 November 2021. She was substantively interviewed on 24 August 2023. The Secretary of State refused the Appellant’s protection claim on 7 November 2023.
4. It was common ground in the appeal that the Appellant would be at risk on return to Tunisia if the credibility of her account was accepted. The Secretary of State had accepted that “if the core of her claim was accepted there would be no sufficiency of protection available to her”, and “it was agreed between the parties at the hearing that if she was found credible then such relocation was not viable, reasonable or safe” [paragraph 15 of the determination].
5. The Judge rejected the credibility of her account for the reasons he set out in paragraphs 28 to 43 of his determination. At [11] the Judge noted:
“There are a considerable number of documents that have been provided after the bundle was stitched. These include … two records of her fingerprints being taken in Paris in November 2019 and September 2020”.
At [12] the Judge recorded that “the Appellant had found, through her daughter in Tunisia, a copy of her passport. I said it could possibly consider that document if it was produced at the hearing but otherwise it would be unfair to the Respondent for me to determine the appeal without the ability for it to be seen and commented upon”. The Judge stated: [emphasis added] at [28]:
“Looking at the documentation that is said to relate to the Appellant, her husband, her daughter and other family members, one is driven to the conclusion that there are a lot of inconsistencies and that there are accounts that cannot be reconciled. Where the Appellant has been challenged about an application she has made, concerning … records of fingerprints said to have been taken at Gard du Nord, she responds throughout that her husband was in control of any application she made and she does not know what was put on forms and denies that she has ever worked or been in Paris.”
At [29] the Judge then concluded (emphasis added):
“I find the last part of that particularly difficult. It is possible to fabricate documents and create application forms on behalf of another and make misrepresentations in them but a fingerprint belongs to the individual and the forms produced by the Respondent show the Appellant’s details and her photograph. I do not accept that she has never been to Paris and find that she was there when her fingerprints were taken both in November 2019 and later in September 2020.
Following further adverse credibility findings, the Judge went on to dismiss the Appellant’s asylum claim at [43-44] (emphasis added):
“43. Putting all this together, reminding myself of the lower standard of proof demanded of her, I would summarise my findings of fact as follows. The Appellant has not been subject to the violence, confinement and ill-treatment that she has claimed. She has had freedom of movement and in this regard. I note particularly her ability to travel by herself to the United Kingdom. I do not accept that she has not been in other countries before, notably France on two occasions. I do not accept that she has been of adverse interest to the authorities in Tunisia or that she has been imprisoned for any reason or is wanted there. I do not accept that she came to this country in fear of her husband or his family.
44. It follows that, while she has claimed for a reason that taken at its highest is capable of engaging the Convention, she has no well-founded fear of persecution for any Convention reason and I must dismiss her appeal on asylum grounds.”
Grounds of Appeal
6. The Appellant appeals on the basis that the Judge materially erred in law by adopting an unfair procedure and through his incorrect / inadequate approach to the evidence. In summary:
Ground 1: The Judge
(a) unfairly proceeded to determine the appeal on the basis of an issue which had not been advanced by a party, and which the Judge had previously indicated he would not place significant adverse weight on, without affording the Appellant sufficient opportunity to provide evidence and arguments in respect of this issue, and
(b) made a material mistake of fact in finding that a biometric enrolment screenshot was conclusive evidence that the Appellant had been inconsistent about having travelled to France, which the Judge then relied on to make adverse credibility findings and dismiss the appeal.
Ground 2: The Judge failed to consider whether the Appellant’s experiences and resulting trauma impacted on the quality of her evidence and therefore failed to apply the Joint Presidential Guidance Note No 2 of 2010 Child, Vulnerable Adult and Sensitive Appellant Guidance to their assessment of the Appellant’s evidence.
Ground 3: The Judge applied the incorrect standard of proof to the Appellant’s evidence and failed to apply the anxious scrutiny required in a claim of this nature.
7. Upper Tribunal Judge Loughran granted permission to appeal on all grounds.
Submissions
8. At the outset of the hearing Mr Terrell who appeared for the Respondent indicated that he had reviewed the file and on Friday had emailed the Appellant’s representatives and the Tribunal to the effect that the material filed by the Respondent and relied on there in relation to the screenshots from the Atlas system pertaining to the entry clearance applications made by the Appellant, which recorded that she registered her biometrics in Paris, were in fact wholly inaccurate and he noted that the Central Reference System in relation to visa applications in fact holds the correct data. Having consulted with the Entry Clearance Manager and other senior colleagues their view is that the Atlas system entries are not likely to be accurate and that the Respondent had unintentionally misled the Judge as to the veracity of that evidence. On that basis the Appellant’s ground one as to a material mistake of fact is made out.
9. I directed that the Mr Terrell file by close of business on Wednesday 3 December 2025 a witness statement setting out the Respondent’s explanation as to how this concerning erroneous and misleading evidence came to be filed with the First-tier Tribunal and relied upon as part of the SSHD’s case against the Appellant which as noted above was key to the Judge’s rejection of her account. That statement was duly received and I set it out in full here:
“The Secretary of State makes this statement pursuant to the direction issued by DUTJ Naik KC on 01/12/2025. As set out at the hearing, the SSHD accepts that the Judge was wrong to place weight on the ATLAS screenshots (B/71-72) which indicated that the Appellant was present in Paris at the time she enrolled her biometrics for her visit visas in 2019 and 2020. Having now reviewed her records and made further enquiries with experienced colleagues in Visas, the SSHD accepts that that evidence was not reliable.
2. As explained at the hearing, whilst ATLAS is now the Home Office’s main database for processing in-country immigration applications, the Appellant’s applications for entry clearance will have been processed on a different system: the Central Registration System (“CRS”). The Appellant has produced screenshots from CRS in relation to her two visa applications (SB/16-20 and 35-40). Those CRS records confirm that the applications were made from Tunisia (see “current location” at SB/16 and 35). There is nothing in either record to suggest that the Appellant enrolled her biometrics in Paris.
3. In light of the CRS records, we made a number of enquiries with colleagues in Visas. In their view, it is highly unlikely that the Appellant would have taken the unusual course of making an application in Tunisia before enrolling her biometrics in Paris. The clearest indicator is the fact that the VAC code (SB/16 and 35) is given as TN02 on each application. That is the VAC code for Tunis. The VAC ID is in fact dictated by the location of the Biometric Enrolment System “BES” (the machine that takes an individual’s biometrics). Whilst the details are technical, the important point is that the location of the BES and VAC code are tied together. If the Appellant had enrolled her biometrics in a different country, the code would be different.
4. As indicated at the hearing, it is not known for certain why the ATLAS screenshots indicate that the location of biometric enrolment was Paris. In the view of our colleagues in Visas, there are a number of plausible explanations. However, in light of the absence of any indication in the CRS records to her biometrics being enrolled in Paris, our experienced colleagues in this area believe that is far more likely that they were enrolled in Tunisia.
5. The SSHD is willing to provide any further information if it assists. As indicated at the hearing, she accepts that the Tribunal made a mistake of fact that resulted in unfairness and so amounts to an error of law. She is content for the decision to be set aside and the appeal remitted to the First-tier Tribunal.
10. As a result of that concession by Mr Terrell that there was a material error of law on ground one (b) that the Judge had proceeded on a material mistake of fact, the parties agreed that the appeal should be remitted de novo.
11. Shortly prior to the hearing, the Appellant had on 27 November 2025 filed a notice under rule 15(2A) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 consisting of 9 pages enclosing a decision of the Single Competent Authority of that date with a Conclusive Grounds decision that the Appellant was a Victim of Modern Slavery. Whilst that is post-decision material not relevant to material error of law, Mr Terrell indicated that the SSHD would file a further review of the protection decision prior to any remitted appeal in light of that and the findings therein.

Notice of Decision

1. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of a material error of law and is set aside.
2. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard afresh by another Judge with no findings of fact preserved.

S Naik KC

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

24 December 2025