Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case Nos: UI-2024-005425
UI-2025-000561

First-tier Tribunal Nos: PA/53334/2021
IA/13436/2021

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On the 11 August 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RASTOGI
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHAPMAN

Between

Mr MMMM
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
v

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr S Karim, Counsel, Shahid Rahman Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr E Tufan, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 9 July 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. The Appellant’s appeal came before the Upper Tribunal on 10 February 2025 when the Respondent accepted that there were material errors of law in the decision and reasons of the First tier Tribunal Judge. In a decision and reasons dated 18 February 2025, appended, that decision was set aside, other than the key finding at [16] of the decision which has not been challenged and where the judge held:
“In determining risk, I proceed on the basis that the Appellant held a political role in Bangladesh whilst he was a student and has been the target of false cases as a result.”
2. The appeal came before the Upper Tribunal for re-making on the issue of the risk on return to the Appellant in light of his accepted profile of holding a political role in Bangladesh whilst a student, as the general secretary of the Bangladesh Islamic Chattra Sena student organisation [BICS], as a result of which he claims he was attacked and hospitalised for five to six months in 2009 and being targeted by false cases as a result. The Appellant also has a sur place claim based on his role as a secretary for the Bangladesh Islami Front [BIF] in the United Kingdom.
3. The Appellant submitted a supplementary bundle shortly before the hearing including: an updating supplementary expert report, an arrest warrant, a letter from a lawyer, Pankaj Sarkar, dated 23 June 2025 and evidence of his political activities in the United Kingdom. The Appellant also sought to rely on a bundle uploaded in April 2025 and a supplementary witness statement dated 3 April 2025. Both parties further sought to rely on the most recent Home Office CPIN on the political situation dated December 2024.
4. Mr Karim called the Appellant to give evidence when he sought to rely on three witness statements dated 27 July 2022; 15 September 2024 and 3 April 2025. The Appellant was cross-examined by Mr Tufan. There was no re-examination. A full record of proceeding was made of the questions and the Appellant’s responses.
5. In his submissions, Mr Tufan accepted in light of the preserved finding by the First-tier Tribunal Judge that the Appellant held a political role in Bangladesh whilst he was a student and was targeted with false cases as a result. He drew attention to the fact that the Appellant delayed in claiming asylum until 6 years after his arrival and after his student appeal was dismissed. Mr Tufan pointed out that initially the basis of the Appellant’s claim for asylum is that he feared the ruling party Awami League, but they are no longer in power, the political landscape has completely changed and there is an interim government in place. In the current political climate he submitted that there is no risk to the Appellant from the Awami League. Whilst the Appellant sets out in his second statement that he now fears Jamaat-e-Islami, this is a lawful party. The Appellant’s evidence is that his father had a relatively strong position in the BNP, the party in opposition to Awami League, and his father would have enough influence to protect him. In his submission the Appellant has changed the goalposts, the Jamaat-e- Islami and the BNP are in alliance and there would be no risk currently from those parties.
6. Mr Tufan submitted that one cannot see from the background evidence how the Appellant would be at risk. Whilst he accepted the preserved finding there are false cases against him he submitted that there would not be a risk to him under current political developments. The Appellant has been in UK since 2010 and there is nothing to suggest a court in Bangladesh would find him guilty of murder or any offences, allegedly committed when the Appellant was in the UK and nothing can logically come out of those charges even if the offences themselves were committed.
7. The Appellant claims he has joined the Bangladesh Islami Front in the United Kingdom, which was accepted, but it is a legal party in Bangladesh and would not bring any risk on return to Bangladesh. With regard to the expert report Mr Tufan submitted that it was general in nature. Mr Mahbub appears to have studied in the UK and his credentials appeared to be bona fide but the report does not take the Appellant’s case any further. The expert’s assertion that the Appellant would be at risk on return was speculative, particularly when the Appellant was not even present in Bangladesh.
8. Mr Tufan further submitted that there would be no very significant obstacles to integration on return to Bangladesh There is a justice system in Bangladesh and the Appellant could get bail so applying Kamara [2016] EWCA Civ 813 principles he could participate in society. He submitted that the human rights aspect of the appeal stands or falls with his asylum claim and there would be no unjustifiably harsh consequences.
9. In his submissions, Mr Karim relied upon the skeleton argument before the First-tier Tribunal at AB 824. He submitted that the Appellant is credible; he was cross- examined and came out unscathed and there was no assertion he has bolstered his evidence other than one point that he has shifted the goalposts.
10. Mr Karim drew our attention to the preserved finding the Appellant had a role in politics in Bangladesh when he was a student and is subject to false charges as a result and he also has a political role in the UK. He sought to rely on the judgment in AH Egypt [2023] EWCA Civ 216 at [52] and the application of a lower standard of proof. He submitted that the earlier determination from 2016 at AB 1032/1041 at [27]-[28] set out the Appellant’s role in Bangladesh with Chattra Sena and his organisation of 50 events. The Appellant has always maintained from the outset that there was an incident on 5 April 2009 when he was attacked by members of Jamaat-e- Islami. Mr Karim drew attention to the fact that the evidence in support of the attack against him in 2009 ie. the report of Dr Wakeem in relation to scarring at AB 273 and photographs and the arrest warrants at AB 230 have not been challenged. He submitted that this previous incident should be given significant weight in line with paragraph 339K of the Immigration Rules as an indication of future conduct.
11. Mr Karim drew attention to developments since the previous appeal hearing which is that there have been two cases brought against the Appellant as set out in the recent supplementary bundle at SB 25 and 17: Defendant no 7 and no 5; also an arrest warrant at SB 37 and a letter from the Appellant’s advocate Pankaj Sarkar. He submitted that none of this evidence was challenged in cross-examination or closing submissions on behalf of the Home Office. At page 63 there is a newspaper article dated 27.9.24 confirming the Appellant has been accused in two cases. Nor has the additional report of Mr Mahbub been challenged. Mr Mahbub is a dual qualified barrister in the UK and Bangladesh and his credentials have been accepted as bona fide by Mr Tufan. His evidence is that the police are ineffective; there remain issues on the ground; at 6.24 he opines that the judiciary are still loyal to the Awami League, who were responsible for past cases and at 14.5. the expert finds that it is unlikely the Appellant would get bail or a fair trial with regard to cases filed by the current interim government.
12. At this point Mr Tufan raised a point, with our permission, that the Awami League have retained control of the office of President of Bangladesh: see the CPIN at 11.1.2. Mr Karim submitted that even if the Appellant is detained and is able to get a fair trial, his detention would amount to persecution as it is based on false charges. Mr Karim sought to rely upon the December 2024 CPIN at 13.3.1 which refers to the politicisation of the police force, more than half of whom have been appointed by the interim government; many Awami League officials remain in place. 13.3.6 provides that, although some police officers - those implicated in abuses under the former regime - have been replaced, this is insufficient and trust in the police remains low and human rights abuses remain and the reality is that the Appellant is likely to be ill-treated. 9.4.2 and 12.5.4. reference the increasing influence of Jamaat-e-Islami since the toppling of Sheik Hasina. The Appellant’s party (and therefore the Appellant) is in complete opposition, and at the opposite end of the spectrum to Jamaat-e-Islami, an Islamist party. He submitted that the increased influence of Jamaat Islami members in the government only increases the risk to the Appellant on return to Bangladesh. With regard to evidence of continuing political activity, the press release at AB 57-AB 59 sets out recent difficulties his party have faced and their concerns over the increase in extremism. He drew attention to the fact that in both his latest witness statement and his September 2024 statement the Appellant states there have been visits by the police to his home in July/August 2024.
13. Mr Karim submitted that in light of the background evidence Bangladesh is not in a stable situation and there has not been durable and sustainable positive change, as required by the Qualification Directive. Applying HJ (Iran) [2010] UKSC 31 even if the Appellant were able to escape the grip of authorities, he would not escape Jamaat-e-Islami. Given the preserved findings of fact, the consistency of narrative and the absence of challenge Mr Karim submitted that the Appellant’s protection claim is made out.
14. As to very significant obstacles, Mr Karim sought to rely on Kamara (op cit) at [14] as the Appellant’s political beliefs are relevant and he would face discrimination and has resided in UK for 15 years. He submitted that there is a risk of detention with no bail which would prevent the Appellant from operating in society on a day to day basis cf Kamara. He submitted that the appeal should be allowed on protection and human rights grounds.
Decision and reasons
15. We start our consideration with the preserved finding of fact by the First-tier Tribunal at [16] of the decision and reasons where the judge held:
“In determining risk, I proceed on the basis that the Appellant held a political role in Bangladesh whilst he was a student and has been the target of false cases as a result.”
16. We have taken account of all the evidence before us, including the expert reports of 11 April 2022 and 17 April 2025 of Mr Mahbub, a dual qualified barrister in the UK and Bangladesh. The expert’s credentials have been accepted as bona fide by Mr Tufan, albeit he submitted that the assertion that the Appellant would be at risk on return was speculation, particularly given he was not even present in Bangladesh when charges were brought.
17. The supplementary report of 17 April 2025 dealing with the change in government is properly sourced and we attach weight to the expert’s conclusions. The expert opines at 1.1. that over the Awami League’s 15 year rule, many former student and youth wing members were recruited en masse “into all levels of administration, law enforcement, army and even the judiciary” and they remain in their positions, barring a few senior positions. He further opines at 1.2 that the Awami League remain active internationally through its diaspora support and locally through its party members and recruits at all levels of administration, including the post of President of the Republic. Specifically with regard to the judiciary the expert states at 6.2. that throughout its tenure the Awami League got its way with the judiciary: “using it as another state machine to harass, incarcerate and even hang opposition leaders and activists.” He notes at 6.3. that in the aftermath of the ousting of Sheikh Hasina, protestors forced the judges of the top level of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court to resign on 10 August 2024, including the Chief Justice and his second in line, “none of the judges in the lower tiers of the judiciary have resigned and barring 12 judges who were “kept away” from duty after a spur of protests, all are in active duty.” He further notes at 6.4. that all cases filed during the Awami League regime remain, barring iconic cases against the BNP’s acting chairman and his mother, the former PM.
18. Mr Mahbub also sets out in section 13 of his supplementary report on “Ghost cases” where he states that in the aftermath of the July-August 2024 protests “there has been a surge in false cases” … According to Supreme Court lawyer, Shahdeen Malik, in some cases filed after the July uprisings, 200 to 250 people have been named as accused, most of whom with no plausible involvement, followed by demands for money to have their names removed from the FIR.83 Human rights activists are concerned that the main perpetrators will go unpunished since it becomes impossible for the investigation officer to conduct a proper inquiry due to the focus and resources having to be spent sifting through the false cases.84 DMP Commissioner, SM Sazzad Ali acknowledged the issue of false cases and extortion, stating that some police officers are also involved in this illicit activity.85
19. This is in the context in which the expert considers the documents in respect of the cases brought against the Appellant which he states are false. The expert states inter alia:
“14.1 In my opinion, the case documents are likely to be genuine since they conform to the general format of genuine case documents insofar as the headings, language, typefaces, structure, and other judicial and legal conventions are concerned. In my professional opinion, the information contained in the said cases is consistent with the content found in genuine criminal cases, whether politically motivated or otherwise…
14.3. The dates of both incidents, being 18.07.2024 and 18.07.2024 suggest that these are false cases as (the Appellant) has been residing in the UK during this time…
20. The expert further held:
“14.4. … (the Appellant’s) political affiliation with the BIF may be the likely motivation for the filing of the case against him.
He finds at 14.5. given the treatment of others with cases filed after the Awami League regime that courts are found to be rejecting bail applications regardless of merit and concludes that upon his return the Appellant, if arrested, is unlikely to receive bail from the cases filed against him after 5 August and it is also unlikely he will get a fair trial. The expert further states:
“15.4 Under the current political context, the torture and detention of individuals, especially those held under police custody, are unlikely to have changed significantly despite the change in government. This is due to the practices within law enforcement which has long been criticized for human rights abuses, including arbitrary detention and the use of torture. Successive governments, regardless of political affiliation, have maintained control over law enforcement agencies, often using them to suppress dissent. Without substantial institutional reforms and accountability mechanisms, these practices are expected to persist, even during the term of the interim government. Moreover, few recent events in the last few months have changed the political situation and it appears that BNP and other small Islamic political parties such as BIF are subjected to violence, torture and death in some cases as well. As a result, it has no longer remained the same position for them as it was few months ago.”
21. We have considered a letter from Mr Pankaj Sarker, Advocate, dated 23 June 2025 where he states that he has considered the papers for the Appellant’s court cases currently in court in the Kulaura jurisdiction in Moulvibazar; it is clear that the police are trying to arrest him with fake accusations; it is very risky for the Appellant to return as there is a good chance the police will arrest him right away, and detain him. We take judicial notice of the fact that Pankaj Sarkar is listed as an advocate at the Moulvibazar Bar and his contact details in the public domain are consistent with those provided in his letter.
22. We have further taken account of the Home Office CPIN in respect of the political situation in Bangladesh, December 2024. We note that it is essentially consistent with evidence referred to in the expert report of Mr Mahbub. We note at 3.1.9 the reference to criminal cases having been filed against a large number of people:
“The interim report from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) noted that from 12 July to 3 August over 450,000 unknown people and 2,000 identified people were registered for offences in at least 286 criminal cases in Dhaka alone. However, as Bangladeshi law allows for anyone to file a case, including against unknown suspects, it is not clear how many of these have proceeded or will proceed to prosecution.”
23. We note the following from the CPIN:
“3.1.9. OHCHR indicates a number of those arrested were subjected to ill treatment in police custody, including torture. No further reports at the time of writing provide a reliable figure to enable assessment of the scale and extent to which this occurred.”
4.1.1 A person who fears the state is unlikely to obtain protection.
4.1.5. The police and the criminal justice system are functioning although their effectiveness continues to be undermined by poor infrastructure, corruption, and bribery.
5.1.1 Where the person has a well-founded fear of persecution or serious harm from the state, they are unlikely to be able to relocate to escape that risk…
“10.4.7 The same OHCHR report noted ‘Reports indicate that a number of those arrested were subjected to ill-treatment and even torture while in police custody.’ 79 The report did not provide further detail on what proportion of the those arrested were ill-treated or whether it had verified the allegations.”
24. We further note section 9 of the CPIN which examines the role of auxiliary organisations, particularly student wings of the political parties and that these play an important role in Bangladeshi politics, which we find is generally corroborative of the Appellant’s account.
25. We make the following findings of fact on the new evidence contained in the supplementary bundle:
25.1. The party the Appellant supports, the Bangladesh Islami Chattra Sena is not associated with the Awami League for the BNP but is affiliated to the Bangladesh Islami Front [BIF]. Both are lawful parties.
25.2. The Appellant’s father has been involved with the BNP and in 2017 he was a vice-President in the No 10 Hajipur Union, which is part of BNP. The CPIN at 3.1.7 and 9.3.4 indicates that the BNP and are Jamaat Islami are now allies after the change of political structure in Bangladesh.
25.3. The Appellant had a role organising meetings and processions in the Maulvibazar district in Kawkapon. He now holds the post of secretary in the BIF in the UK;
25.4. Two cases have been brought against the Appellant on 23.8.24 and 24.8.24 for murder and GBH. The Appellant states that these are false cases brought by Jamaat Shibir, the student wing of Jamaat Islami, who are in the interim government.
25.5. An arrest warrant was issued against the Appellant on 3 June 2025.
26. In light of our findings of fact and taking account of the evidence, particularly the expert report of Mr Mahbub, the letter from Advocate Pankaj Sarker and the information contained in the CPIN December 2024, we make the following findings:
26.1. It is reasonably likely that the First Information reports and arrest warrant are genuine;
26.2. The section 8 finding in the refusal decision is now redundant in light of the preserved finding and concessions by Mr Tufan and the lack of challenge to the new material.
26.3. In the absence of any real challenge to the credibility of the Appellant’s account of his sur place political activities, evidence of two charges brought in absentia against him in Bangladesh, the arrest warrant and a letter from advocate Pankaj Sarkar, supported by the expert report of Mr Mahbub, we accept that there is a real risk that the Appellant would be arrested pursuant to the warrant.
26.4. We find, in light of the evidence set out above, that there is a real risk that the Appellant would be detained and ill-treated, in circumstances where the evidence indicates that he may not be released on bail nor would he receive a fair trial given that the charges appear to be politically motivated.
26.5. Despite the fact that the charges are highly likely to be false as the Appellant was in the United Kingdom in 2024 and he may ultimately not be convicted, we find that there remains a real risk on the evidence that the treatment he is likely to receive in detention would reach the Article 3 threshold.
26.6. We find this to be the case even though, as Mr Tufan submitted, the Appellant’s party is legal and his father has had a past role as a vice-President of a union branch in the BNP, who are now allied with the Jamaat-e-Islami party. We find this would be insufficient to protect the Appellant in light of the fact that charges have been brought and an arrest warrant issued and the real risk of ill-treatment whilst detained awaiting trial.
27. It is clear that there remains inherent instability in Bangladesh at the current time. In light of our findings that there is a real risk that the Appellant would be subjected to ill-treatment, including torture, in detention following his arrest we find that this would amount to persecution on the basis of perceived political opinion.
28. For the reasons set out above we allow the appeal on protection grounds and on the basis that the Appellant’s removal to Bangladesh would be contrary to Article 3 of ECHR.
29. In the alternative and for the same reasons, we find that there would be very significant obstacles to the Appellant’s integration into Bangladesh and that removal of the Appellant would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences contrary to Article 8 of ECHR.
30. The appeal is allowed on protection and human rights grounds.

Rebecca Chapman

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Chapman

6 August 2025