Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-005624

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/01420/2023
HU/54199/2022

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

15th December 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LANE
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE FARRELLY

Between

Mr WAHEED SHAH
(NO ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Joe Bryce, Counsel, instructed by Maguire and Co, Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr Andrew Mullen, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer.

Heard at Edinburgh on the 8th of October 2025.

Order Regarding Anonymity

The original anonymity order Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, was removed by the Upper Tribunal dealing with the error of law issue. Bearing in mind the arguments advanced before us and the preference for open justice we have decided to continue without anonymity.

DECISION AND REASONS
Introduction.
1. The appellant is a national of Pakistan, born in 1995. He came to the United Kingdom in early 2011. He was almost 16 years of age. He travelled with his mother, his older sister and younger brother. They joined his father, who came here as a student in 2004. The family were granted visas as Tier 4 student dependants and settled in Manchester.
2. In late 2011, the appellant experienced a mental breakdown and attacked his parents. He was subsequently detained in hospital for several weeks. His father completed his studies, obtained a degree and qualified as a teacher. He subsequently obtained employment with immigration services.
3. In late 2014 the appellant moved to Glasgow where he remains. In 2016 he unsuccessfully claimed asylum. DUT Judge Farrelly heard this appeal on the 6th of February 2017, and it was dismissed. The claim was that he was at risk from the Taliban. Meantime, his parents became naturalised, his brother was granted indefinite leave to remain and his sister succeeded in her human rights appeal. All live together in Manchester.
4. Further submissions were refused and First tier Tribunal Judge Kempton dismissed his appeal on 30th August 2024. On the 25th of April 2025 Upper Tribunal Judge Skinner set aside her decision and ordered a re-making in the Upper Tribunal but restricted to article 8 only. This is the subject of the present appeal.
Remaking
5. Mr Bryce has provided a skeleton argument. He states that the appellant received a police caution for the original assault upon his parents in 2011, a fine in 2021 for possession of cannabis and a non-custodial disposal in November 2022 in respect of domestic violence towards his then partner. This is consistent with the PNC checks. We acknowledge that the account of his criminality in the report of Dr Leighton at p 26 of the bundle is inaccurate.
6. The argument was that his mental health and lack of family support meant there would be very significant obstacles to his integration if returned to Pakistan. It was also argued there existed the real, committed, or effective support constituent for family life within article 8 between the appellant and his parents and siblings and it would be disproportionate to interfere with this.
7. Both representatives confirmed they had no objection to DUT Judge Farrelly sitting on the panel by reason of his involvement in the appellant’s original protection appeal.
8. We heard from the appellant’s father who adopted his statement. He was asked about financial support for the appellant. He said when he needs help the family are there for him. However, he said they could not help him if he were in Pakistan but accepted, he could still send him money.
9. The appellant then gave evidence and adopted his statement. He said he had no qualifications and had worked as a labourer. He said he attends a community psychiatric nurse every two weeks. He said he would see his family twice a month. He said in Pakistan there was no one to support him.
10. In submissions, Mr Mullen continued to rely on the reasons for refusal letter. He submitted that whilst the appellant might face difficulties readjusting to life in Pakistan a high threshold was anticipated in the test of very significant obstacles to integration. He pointed out the appellant had been absent from the family home in Manchester for 10 years. There was limited evidence of integration into life in the United Kingdom. On return to Pakistan his father could support him financially. He speaks Pashto and has been engaged in labouring work.
11. In response, Mr Bryce adopted his skeleton argument and referred to the medical evidence in the papers .
Consideration
12. The skeleton argument suggests that but for the appellant’s mental health problems his immigration status would have been regularised. We do not find any merit in this ` but for argument’ argument. Status was granted to his family via various different routes and for varied reasons and we do not see any injustice arising in the appellant’s situation.
13. We have considered his medical history. We had regard to his criminal convictions. We considered the risk of self-harm. The protection claim has not been revived and it was accepted on his behalf the claim on this basis could not succeed because there was sufficiency of protection and the option of relocation.
14. The skeleton argument states it is fully accepted the focus in this appeal is on the family life claim. However, it suggests that we should revisit his claimed experiences at the hands of the Taliban when considering article 8 and his mental health. We are not reopening that claim in this way because those claims have been rejected. In considering his mental health we are focusing upon how he is functioning rather than establishing possible underlying events.
15. His medical records admitted further to rule 15(2A) show a referral on the 24th of May 2022 by his GP to the community mental health team. There was cannabis misuse and anger management issues. He missed appointments and presented at times as abusive and racist towards staff .He had been removed from the doctor’s patient list.
16. The records indicated an ongoing issue with rectal bleeding and inflammatory bowel disease was suspected. A CT scan raised the possibility of an appendicitis. He had a small umbilical hernia and haemorrhoids.
17. The records record that he had a girlfriend in Scotland who was a nurse. That relationship ended acrimoniously in 2022.There was also reference in the notes to a girlfriend released from prison after stabbing her husband which may or may not be the same person.
18. There is a letter from the community mental health team to the GP dated December 2018. The conclusion was that he did not meet the criteria for PTSD and his difficulties related to a lack of structure and meaningful activity. He was hospitalised in December 2019 following an overdose. There had been a similar presentation in 2017. A note from the Glasgow City Hospital psychiatry services on the 12th of December 2019 from the mental health nurse stated that while he displayed issues of anger and frustration there was little evidence of depressive illness. Rather, the issues were personality traits. The overdose was impulsive and there was minimal suicidal intention. On discharge he forcefully punched the Christmas tree. There is an extract from a detailed letter from a locum psychiatrist, Doctor Giofkis, who was of the view that the risk of self-harm appeared low at that time.
19. His representatives had obtained a report in 2017 from a Psychiatrist, Doctor Durrani who confirmed his GP notes and records were not available and was unable to corroborate any of the account relayed. The doctor refers to some maladaptive personality traits.
Conclusions
20. We considered whether there was family life within the meaning of article 8 between the appellant and his parents and siblings. There is no presumption of family life between relatives. We had regard to the guidance given in Kugathas [2003] EWCA Civ 31 . The court emphasised the Strasburg case law guided that to establish family life within the meaning of Article 8 there had to something more than the normal emotional ties within a family such as between parent and child. The court was looking for evidence of dependency or committed relationships.
21. We accepted there was a family life in the general sense, but we did not see anything more than what would be considered normal. We appreciate that family life as meant within article 8 can exist even if the family are not living together. However, there was no evidence in this appeal to show more than the norm. The appellant chose to live in Glasgow and is on his own. He is now 30 years of his age and has been away from his family for 11 years. We accept there is contact and that he visits on occasion, but we concluded family life, as meant in article 8, was not established.
22. We considered his private life. This falls within the immigration rules but section 117B(5) provides that little weight should be given to a private life established when the person's immigration status is precarious, as here. We appreciate the public interest considerations however have no purchase when the immigration rules are satisfied. In this appeal the relevant consideration is paragraph 276 ADE 1 of the rules. Given that the appellant has not been here 20 years, the issue is para 276ADE 1(vi) and whether there would be very significant obstacles to his integration into Pakistan. In support of this, the appellant’s representative relies upon his mental health issues and a lack of family support there.
23. He had lived in Pakistan until he was 16 years of age. His medical records indicate a long history of mental health and personality problems, including the use of multiple antidepressants without much success. The evidence did not indicate that he regularly attended the community mental health team as he suggested. We did not find his mental health was so severe as to prevent his reintegration into life in Pakistan. His father could continue to send him money to help with the transition. We do not find the evidence indicates significant integration here notwithstanding the length of time he has been here. We see no other reason that would prevent reintegration.
24. It was our conclusion that the respondent's decision was proportionate to immigration control and did not breach the appellant’s article 8 rights.

Notice of Decision
The appeal is dismissed.

FJ Farrelly

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
13th December 2025