Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-005545

First-tier Tribunal Nos: HU/51935/2023
IA/00594/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 8th of October 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LOUGHRAN
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WELSH

Between

HM
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Murphy, instructed by Sterling Lawyers Ltd
For the Respondent: Mr E Tufan, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 11 September 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, a citizen of Tajikistan, appeals with the permission of Upper Tribunal Judge Kamara against a decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Doyle (‘the judge’) dated 15 March 2025.
The Appeal to the First-tier Tribunal
2. The appellant claimed asylum on 20 July 2022. In a decision dated 31 January 2023, the respondent refused his protection and human rights claim. The appellant appealed against that refusal and the appeal came before the judge on 6 March 2024. In a decision dated 15 March 2024 the judge dismissed the appellant’s appeal concluding that:
“The appellant’s own account is that his participation in a rally in November 2021 is the activity which caused interest from the Tajikistani authorities, but the appellant was in Russia from October 2021 to February 2022. He cannot have come to the adverse attention of the Tajik authorities. I therefore find that if the appellant fails to establish that he is a refugee.”
The Appeal to the Upper Tribunal
3. The appellant applied for permission to appeal against the judge’s decision. The appellant’s grounds can be summarised as follows:
(1) The judge made a material mistake of fact in respect of the core of the appellant’s account. It was the appellant’s account that he was at risk because he participated in a rally in 2018.
(2) The judge failed to make a finding as to whether the appellant attended the rally in 2018 and whether he would be at risk as a result of his attendance at that rally.
4. The First-tier Tribunal refused permission to appeal on 15 November 2024 but the Upper Tribunal granted permission on 18 March 2025 stating that:
“The appellant’s account relies upon a 2018 rally he took part in against the detention of Sharof Qobilov which he states triggered adverse interest from the Tajik authorities. It is therefore arguable that the judge erred in focusing on a demonstration in 2021 which the appellant did not claim to have attended rather than making findings on the 2018 rally.”
5. The respondent did not provide a response under Rule 24 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008.
6. At the hearing we heard submissions from Mr Murphy for the appellant and Mr Tufan for the respondent.
7. Mr Murphy took us to the appellant’s interview record to demonstrate that the appellant’s account is that he attended a rally in 2018 and a summons was issued on the basis of his attendance at that rally.
8. Mr Tufan submitted that it is clear from reading the decision as a whole that the judge had rejected the appellant’s credibility and that there was therefore no material error of law in the judge’s decision.
9. At the end of the hearing we indicated that we were satisfied that the judge had materially erred in law and that our reasons would follow in writing.
Discussion
10. It is clear from the appellant’s Asylum Interview Record that he claimed to be at risk in Tajikistan because of his participation in a rally in 2018. For example, the following exchange is recorded in the Asylum Interview Record at questions 82-83:
“can you tell me briefly, why you are claiming asylum?
in 2018 I participated in a rally in Rushan in protest against detention of a person. when we were at the rally we knew that an innocent person got arrested and they wanted to put him in prison and we wanted him to release him. he was accused of smuggling, that he was engaged in smuggling and they wanted to imprison him. people protested against it. also there were to youngsters, school boys that they wanted to arrest only because they stood up for this guy, people didn't want this guy to be arrested. a war back home, I can tell you in detail about it, it all started and that is why I cannot return to my country and that is why I would be at risk there.
ok, so we will go into detail later but briefly, can you tell me why you are claiming asylum today?
because I participated in that rally in 2018 and a case was opened against us. I have proof and summons of interrogation. If I go home they will arrest me for participating in the rally and they will come up with more accusations and during interrogation they can torture people. Recently when Pamiri return from somewhere they get arrested and parents find out days later that he is in custody and interrogation they torture people. Recently a lot of people have been arrested, that is why I have the fear. I heard people to particulate in the rally in 2018, cases have been opened against them and they have been arrested. When you get arrested that can accuse you of things you have not committed, they can just hang it on you. When I arrived in the UK, on the 2nd June 2022, summons were received for me. for interrogation. if I return home I will be imprisoned for many years.”
11. This account is also repeated in the appellant’s witness statement where he states:
“2. In 2018, I participated in a peaceful protest in Rushan, driven by the unjust detainment of an innocent individual named Kobil Sharofov, accused of smuggling. Two school children who championed his cause were also targeted for arrest. As a community, we insisted on his release, voicing our disapproval through a rally. Regrettably, my participation in this event led to legal troubles as I am currently accused of taking part in the rally and face charges in my homeland. I have a summons to attend an interrogation, a process feared for its brutal and potentially lethal nature.
3. I received the summons while residing in Great Britain. I am currently unable to return to Tajikistan as I risk immediate detention at the airport and subsequent arrest. I have witnessed innocent individuals being blamed and penalized unjustly during such interrogations.
4. Tragically, a fellow Pamir resident, Gulbiddin Ziebekov, was murdered. This incited further protest amongst the people, leading to a rally in Khorog on November 25, 2021, demanding the authorities apprehend those responsible. I, along with approximately 100 others, attended this rally in support of another innocent individual falsely accused of smuggling. Subsequently, the authorities began issuing summonses to participants of the 2018 rally following a special operation in Rushan that commenced on May 18, 2022. I was among those summoned for questioning.”
12. We note that in his witness statement the appellant also claims to have attended a rally in 2021.
13. The judge repeatedly notes the appellant’s claim to have attended a rally in 2018 and even records in his decision that it is the appellant’s account that it is because he attended that rally in 2018 that a summons was issued in 2022. However, the judge also describes the appellant’s account to have attended a demonstration on 25 November 2021 as the “fulcrum” and/or “foundation” of his claim. As quoted above at [2], the judge also records that it is the appellant’s account it is his participation in a rally in November 2021 which caused interest from the Tajikistani authorities.
14. It is clear to us that from reading the appellant’s Asylum Interview Record and his witness statement that a key part of the appellant’s claim is his attendance at a rally in 2018. The judge does not make a finding at all as to whether the appellant attended the rally in 2018.
15. We are not persuaded by Mr Tufan’s submission that when read as a whole it can be discerned that the judge rejected the entirety of the appellant’s account and therefore did not materially err in law or mischaracterise the appellant’s account.
16. We are satisfied that the judge made a material mistake of fact as to what the appellant’s claim was and/or failed to make a finding on a matter in issue i.e. whether the appellant attended the rally in 2018 and would be at risk as a result of his attendance.
17. We are satisfied that the judge’s failure to make a finding on a key aspect of the appellant’s account infects the entire decision and that no findings of fact can be preserved.
18. Applying the guidance in paragraph 7 of the Senior President’s Practice Statement and AEB v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWCA Civ 1512 and Begum (Remaking or remittal) [2023] UKUT 00046 (IAC), given the issues and the amount of fact-finding that will be required to do, we consider that the appeal should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal.
Notice of Decision
19. The First-tier Tribunal decision is set aside. No findings of fact are preserved, and the matter will be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard by a different judge afresh.

G. Loughran
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

29 September 2025