Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-005145

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/54120/2023
LP/04122/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 21 November 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LODATO

Between

AA
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms King, counsel
For the Respondent: Ms Rushforth, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Cardiff Civil Justice Centre on 11 November 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
Introduction
1. I have decided to maintain the anonymity order originally made in these proceedings by the First-tier Tribunal because the underlying claim involves international protection issues in that the appellant claims to fear persecution or serious harm on return to Afghanistan. In reaching this decision, I am mindful of the fundamental principle of open justice, but I am satisfied, taking the appellant’s case at its highest for these purposes, that the potential grave risks outweigh the rights of the public to know of his identity.
2. The appellant arrived in the UK in 2019 and has remained here ever since. His protection claim, now confined to humanitarian protection, is advanced on the basis that his prolonged stay in the UK has led to a degree of ‘westernisation’ which, he contends, would expose him to serious harm on return to Afghanistan. He asserts that his appearance, mannerisms, and lifestyle changes—such as wearing western clothing, trimming his beard, and speaking some English—would mark him out as not conforming to the Taliban’s strict moral code, thereby attracting adverse attention at checkpoints and during questioning. He further claims that his mental health vulnerabilities would impair his ability to respond appropriately under pressure, increasing the risk of self-disclosing the length of time he has been in the UK and the western influences he has adopted. Such disclosure would risk detention or ill-treatment. These arguments are set against the error of law decision of Upper Tribunal Judge Hanson sealed on 26 February 2025, which preserved the findings of fact reached in the First-tier Tribunal (‘FTT’) in rejecting his earlier narrative of being targeted by the Taliban. The FTT found him to have lied about core aspects of his history, including his age and family circumstances.
Appeal to the First-tier Tribunal
3. As alluded to above, several findings of fact reached by the FTT stand as preserved for the purposes of these remaking proceedings. At paragraphs [17]-[22], the appellant was found to have lied about being a minor when he arrived in the UK, that his family were killed in an explosion after their vehicle drove over a land mine and that he did not have a wife and child in Afghanistan. Over the course of the asylum process, the appellant admitted that he had lied about these matters.
Appeal to the Upper Tribunal
4. At the remaking hearing, the parties were agreed that the fundamental issue I must resolve is whether the appellant would be at a real risk of serious harm on return to Afghanistan due to being seen as ‘westernised’. If I were to find on the evidence that the appellant had not established a real risk of being perceived to be ‘westernised’ by the authorities in Afghanistan, his protection appeal must fail. If such a perception were established as being a real risk according to the lower standard of proof, I would then need to turn my attention to whether the country background information and expert evidence relied upon established that being perceived as westernised might expose such a person to serious harm.
5. Following the reported decision of the Upper Tribunal in YMKA and Ors (‘westernisation’) Iraq [2022] UKUT 00016 (IAC), the parties agreed that the fears expressed by the appellant could not, in principle, amount to a Refugee Convention reason.
6. I was invited to treat the appellant as a vulnerable witness given the mental health conditions diagnosed by the expert witness, Dr Battersby. The respondent did not object and I indicated that I would make any necessary adjustments to hearing procedure to ensure that the appellant was able to give his best evidence and follow the proceedings. I informed him that he could take a break if he wished and that I would closely oversee the manner in which he was questioned.
7. At the remaking hearing, I heard oral evidence from the appellant with the assistance of an interpreter. He adopted the contents of his witness statements. In his witness statement dated 2 April 2024, he described how his family inferred that he had lost weight while in the UK due to consuming drugs and alcohol and abandoning his religion. He feared that his practice, since arriving in the UK, of shaving his beard, would also send a signal that he had become ‘westernised’. In his more recent statement, dated 5 June 2025, prepared for the purposes of the remaking hearing, he described learning English, but that he had struggled to integrate in the UK by making friends and generally kept to himself. He continued to cut his beard short or fully shaved, as he did at the hearing, and feared that his dress and appearance would put him in danger on return to Afghanistan. Under cross-examination, he accepted that he considered himself to be a practicing Muslim and observed Ramadan. He further accepted that he could readily wear traditional clothing in Afghanistan and easily grow his beard but would prefer to do neither.
8. I have carefully considered the expert reports of Dr Battersby and Mr Foxley MBE as well as the country background information relied upon by both sides including the CPIN – Afghanistan: Fear of the Taliban (version 5.1 of August 2025) and, in particular, sections 16.3-16.5.
9. Dr Battersby is a consultant general adult psychiatrist who has authored over 200 medico legal reports in this jurisdiction. Her expertise to comment on the appellant’s mental health was not questioned. However, it was suggested that she did not adequately familiarise herself with the necessary medical records before coming to her conclusions. As I noted during exchanges with Ms Rushforth during the hearing, the expert had engaged with records provided to her about the appellant’s documented history of appearing to exaggerate his symptoms (see pages 5-6 of her report). When outlining his social history, the expert noted that the appellant had vigorously denied drinking alcohol when presented with a picture which appeared to show him with an alcoholic drink. He emphasised during this exchange that he was a practicing Muslim. He talked of playing cricket with his friends in the UK but that he avoids nightclubs and bars and that he avoids interacting with people.
10. Turning to his mental health, Dr Battersby observed that he had had thoughts of suicide but that these thoughts had not crystallised into firm plans. He was found to have generalised anxiety disorder and moderate symptoms of a depressive disorder.
11. At paragraphs [21]– [29] of his May 2025 expert report, Mr Foxley assessed the risk posed by perceived ‘westernisation’ and its implications for returnees under Taliban rule. He explained that the Taliban view the United Kingdom as a hostile, “infidel” state and that Afghans associated with western countries face heightened suspicion, particularly at checkpoints manned by poorly educated and armed personnel. While defining ‘westernisation’ was a complex task, Mr Foxley noted that indicators such as language, clothing, grooming, and possession of western-linked items can trigger adverse attention. He cited UNHCR guidance and historical research showing that returnees from Europe have been accused of abandoning Islam or acting as spies, sometimes suffering threats, torture, or even killings. The longer an individual had been abroad, the greater the risk of being perceived as culturally alien, which could lead to vulnerability to serious harm.
12. Mr Foxley concluded that Taliban enforcement of strict moral codes and Sharia law had intensified recently, with checkpoints proliferating and interrogation practices often involving violence. He warned that any revealed connection to the UK could exacerbate risks, especially in volatile rural areas, or during questioning at checkpoints, where suspicion of espionage or treachery may arise. Mr Foxley considered the risk of harm from ‘westernisation’ to be real, compounded by Taliban hostility toward western states and their aggressive approach to anyone who stands out. He concluded his analysis on this subject with the following caveat: “But there is little data to go on and it is hard to predict the likely actions of an aggressive, suspicious but often poorly organised regime such as the Taliban”.
13. The CPIN presented a more nuanced and mixed picture of conditions on the ground in Afghanistan regarding ‘westernisation’. Sections 16.3–16.5 explain that ‘westernisation’ is an imprecise concept, generally referring to behaviours, appearance, and attitudes perceived as influenced by western culture—such as wearing western-style clothing, trimmed beards, modern hairstyles, or expressing liberal views on gender roles. The Taliban’s ideological project to “purify” Afghan society includes hostility toward western influence, particularly among urban residents, civil society actors, and those educated abroad. While reactions vary by region and individual profile, those seen as adopting western norms may face suspicion and pressure to conform, especially under the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (‘PVPV’) law. Adaptation to local customs and dress codes is often expected, and failure to comply can attract scrutiny or punishment.
14. The CPIN notes that enforcement is inconsistent but includes documented cases of arbitrary detention, humiliation, and job-related sanctions for men with short beards or western-style haircuts, and for barbers providing such services. Although there is little evidence of systematic targeting solely for having lived in the west, indicators such as western education, employment with foreign organisations, or English language skills can heighten risk, particularly at checkpoints or in conservative provinces. Overall, the guidance stresses that risk depends on local context, personal networks, and ability to mask perceived ‘westernisation’, with penalties ranging from verbal warnings to imprisonment under morality laws.
15. At the conclusion of the hearing, I heard detailed and helpful oral submissions from Ms Rushforth and Ms King. I address any submissions of significance in the discussion section below.
Discussion
16. To succeed in his appeal on humanitarian protection grounds, the appellant must not be a refugee; they must show substantial grounds for believing that they would face a real risk of suffering serious harm in their country of origin. The burden of proof rests on the appellant.
17. The first, and potentially decisive, question I must consider is whether the appellant would be seen as ‘westernised’ on return to Afghanistan. This turned, to a large degree, on how the appellant would be likely to present himself and his ability to conceal his past, and his claimed changed attitudes. If the appellant is unable to establish that there is a real risk that he would be seen in this way, there could be no question of his appeal succeeding on humanitarian protection grounds because he would not be treated as ‘westernised’ on return. The objective question of how the Taliban authorities would be likely to conduct themselves would become otiose because there would be no reason to conclude they would regard him as ‘westernised’ in the first place. Ms King’s primary argument in support of the proposition that he might be perceived as ‘westernised’ flowed from the appellant’s track record of telling lies which were easily exposed partly due to self-disclosure. In short, he was characterised as an unsophisticated and incompetent liar who readily disavowed lies he had previously told.
18. The first point to note is that the appellant would not be required to live a lie on return to Afghanistan. He readily accepted under cross-examination that he continued to embrace Islam and observed its practices. He has maintained this position for some time now and said something similar to Dr Battersby. He has also been frank over time, and consistently across his various accounts, that he has struggled to integrate in the UK and does not spend much time socialising with others. He provided no evidence to suggest that he had adopted British values and changed his identity to be more aligned with any kind of conception of western mores. Instead, the extent to which he claimed to have become ‘westernised’ was in how he dresses and in his continuing efforts to learn English. His progress in learning the language was accepted to have been limited notwithstanding his presence in the UK since 2019. He gave evidence at the hearing using an interpreter. Without any difficulty, I find that the appellant’s cultural identity has not materially shifted such that he would have to stifle how he conducts himself to any significant degree. As he said under cross-examination, he could grow a beard and wear traditional Afghan clothing if he chooses. This would go some way to masking any outward connection to the UK or the west. The risks of arousing suspicion would be greatly reduced.
19. The next point to consider is how the appellant would be likely to conduct himself if subject to questioning in Afghanistan. It was a fundamental part of his case that he has lied about various matters in the context of his protection claim. The lies have included being a minor and his family being killed in an explosion. He is no stranger to telling lies and could clearly do so again if asked questions which might reveal his recent past. Effectively, his case was that he is so very bad at lying that he would quickly be exposed as someone who had been in the UK for an extended period. I do not accept this contention. Firstly, the context in which his lies became known is important. He accepted telling lies about his circumstances under the rigours of an adversarial forensic process designed to get to the truth. Secondly, he would have every incentive to obscure his past in the UK once he is returned to Afghanistan as he will be aware of the dangers of being open and transparent. I have no reason to doubt the expert evidence of Dr Battersby that the appellant has generalised anxiety disorder and moderate symptoms of a depressive episode. However, I am not persuaded that this renders him any more susceptible to being exposed in a lie or withholding information. I found it to be striking that when this person in authority challenged him about evidence which appeared to suggest he had consumed alcohol, he was steadfast in resisting the implication. The relevant passage is at page 5 of the report in the following terms:
He told me that he goes to the city centre and plays cricket with his friends. He said that he avoids nightclubs and bars. He said he considers himself to be Muslim and sometimes prays. He said that he did observe Ramadan and does not drink alcohol. I said that I had seen a photo of him that looked like he was in a bar with a drink that looked alcoholic. He queried this and I shared my screen so he could see it. He said that someone had put that photo on social media and his family had seen it and were very upset thinking that he was drinking alcohol. He said that it was pomegranate juice and that he was with a male friend. I said that the drink looked more like an alcoholic drink to me than a juice but he remained adamant that this was juice. He told me that he has no contact with his wife and is having less contact with friends and family. He said he doesn’t like mixing with people. He said that he does sometimes smoke shisha. […]
This revealed an independence of mind which was difficult to reconcile with the ultra-impressionable and easily-led characterisation advanced in the submissions.
20. I am not persuaded that the appellant is such an inept liar or so weak-willed that there is a real risk that he will collapse and admit to his past if subjected to questioning by Taliban officials, or fighters at a checkpoint or similar security exchange.
21. I reject the suggestion that the appellant will appear as ‘westernised’ on return to Afghanistan or that he will volunteer his past. There is not a real risk that he will be seen to have become ‘westernised’ and thereby exposed to serious harm. It follows that it is unnecessary to consider what would be the likely consequences if he were so perceived.
Notice of Decision
On remaking, I dismiss the humanitarian protection ground of appeal.

P Lodato

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

19 November 2025