Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-005916

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/62983/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On the 17 March 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HOFFMAN
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE IQBAL

Between

TK
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms Nnamani of Counsel instructed by Howe & Co Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr Parvar – Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 3 March 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 is a Kurdish Alevi from Turkey, who appealed against the Respondent’s decision 14th November 2023, refusing his claim for protection, based on a fear from the authorities given his political activities for the HDP party. His claim was made on the 14 November 2022.
2. In refusing the claim, the Respondent accepted the Appellant was an Alevi Kurd. Further as the Appellant’s claim fell to be considered under the Nationality and Border Act 2022, it was accepted at the outset that his fears from the Turkish authorities for his political activities amounted to persecution for a Convention reason. However it was considered he had failed to provide a credible account of his involvement with the HDP or resulting problems.
3. His appeal was refused by First-tier Tribunal Judge Coll (“the Judge”), in a decision promulgated on the 21st October 2024. Permission to appeal was sought by the Appellant and granted by First-tier Tribunal Judge Dieu on the 24th December 2024.
The Decision
4. The Appellant was represented at the hearing before the First-tier Tribunal. The Judge’s findings of credibility and fact were recorded in her decision from paragraph [9] through to [18]. From [15] - [17], the Judge having noted the Appellant was an accepted Kurd of the Alevi faith, concluded that background evidence did not support a fear of persecution. In relation to his political activity the Judge at [18] considered the Appellant’s claim to have been politically active for HDP and concluded that the Appellant had shown little knowledge of the HDP's leadership, aims or activities and gave very vague reasons for his claimed involvement in the HDP.
5. At [21] the Judge concluded that the Appellant had not established any basis for abuse in detention. Further it was noted that at [22] he had failed to demonstrate in any case an ongoing interest by the authorities as he had remained in Turkey for over a six week period after his release. The Judge also concluded that the Appellant had provided inconsistent evidence as to the contact he had with his parents as recorded at [23] – [24] concluding at [24.4] that the Appellant’s evidence was not consistent with background evidence which noted that family members of low level HDP supporters were forced to become informants.
6. Against this background the Judge concluded at [31] that the Appellant had failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution on return to Turkey on the basis of a political opinion, his race or religion.
7. The Judge also considered separately at [33] - [34], the Appellant's Article 8 rights and found the Appellant would not face very significant obstacles to integration with reference to 276ADE (1)(vi) of the Immigration Rules, additionally that there were no exceptional circumstances which would require consideration outside of the immigration rules. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed on all grounds.
Grounds of appeal
8. The grounds essentially make the following points. First, the Judge’s credibility findings were flawed and by requiring corroboration, the Judge had fallen into error, particularly when considering the Appellant's detentions. Second, that the Judge’s approach to the Appellant's account in relation to his support of the HDP was flawed. Third, that the Judge failed to adequately consider a risk on return, specifically by failing to direct herself to the principles in the country guidance authority of IK [2004] UKIAT 00312.

Grant of permission
9. The First-tier Tribunal granted permission on the 24th December 2024, limited to ground 3 only. A rule 24 response was served by the Respondent in which they maintained the Judge had directed herself appropriately and that case of IK related to failed asylum seekers whose political involvement had been accepted.
The Hearing
10. At the error of law hearing, we received helpful submissions by Ms Nnamani and Mr Parvar, all of which are a matter of record. Ms Nnamani submitted that the Judge had materially erred in her decision as outlined at ground 3 of the Grounds of Appeal dated 28th October 2024.
11. She invited us to find that there was material error of law in the determination as the Judges had failed to relevant Country Guidance namely the case of IK.
12. She submitted the refusal letter accepted the Appellant was a Kurd of the Alevi faith, but that the Judge had failed to consider these risk factors against those identified at paragraph 14 of the decision in IK particularly at paragraph (i),(j) and (k). These highlighted that someone from the Kurdish ethnicity of Alevi faith without a current up to date Turkish passport would be of interest regardless of whether his political activity for the HDP was accepted as credible.
13. She submitted therefore that the Judge was required to consider these factors when assessing how the Appellant would be perceived on return, particularly as there was a three year gap since the Appellant had left which could trigger the interest of the authorities in the Appellant. She further highlighted, the appeal skeleton argument at paragraph at [4] and [18]-[22] had clearly referred to the case of IK and its applicability. Further that the recent decision of PG [2025] EWCA Civ 133 at [57-60] reinforced the fact that the starting point for consideration of an individual's claim would be country guidance unless, “very strong grounds supported by cogent evidence, are adduced justifying not doing so.”
14. On behalf of the Respondent, Mr Parvar, conceded there was no express reference to the country guidance, but that the First-tier Tribunal as a specialist tribunal would have had it in mind and would not have to specifically refer to it. He further submitted that the adverse findings by the Judge did not assist the Appellant insofar as the risk factors considered in IK were concerned, as they were predominantly factors which related to involvement with a separatist organization. The Appellant’s claim in this respect had not been found credible. He further noted that the Appellant had not relied on the lack of any travel documentation. But in any case, it was considered a failure to consider the combined facts of the Appellant’s Kurdish ethnicity and Alevi faith did not disclose a material error of law.
15. At the end of the hearing, we reserved our decision.
Conclusions
16. There is a need for appropriate judicial restraint before interfering with a decision of the First-tier Tribunal, particularly when there has been a holistic consideration of the evidence presented from a variety of sources against the applicable legal framework. We remind ourselves that it is generally unhelpful for First-tier Tribunal judgments to rehearse every detail or issue raised and that as long as key conflicts in the evidence have been resolved and clear reasons for the decision are given then there is generally no reason to interfere with such a decision.
17. With all of this in mind, we conclude that the Judge did not materially err in law. That conclusion is based on the following reasons.
18. We note the country guidance of IK at [14] adopted the risk factors identified in the case of A (Turkey) [2003] UKIAAT 00034. This was against what was recorded in A (Turkey) at [42] where it was outlined that there was a risk for an individual on return to Turkey in light of their history when considering
“previous arrests, outstanding arrest warrants, criminal records or judicial preliminary inquiries or investigations by the police or Jandarma will be contained on the GBTS computer system. The typical returned Turkish asylum seeker will be travelling either or no documents or one way emergency travel documents, which we accept may place the authorities on notice that they return as someone who has sought asylum and has been unsuccessful. If, however, the claimant holds a current valid Turkish passport, it is significantly less likely that this perception will arise.”
19. On the facts of the Appellant's case as already outlined, the Judge extensively rejected the credibility of the Appellant's account to have been a supporter of the HDP and, accordingly to have been arrested as a result on two occasions. Further, she found that his evidence about the treatment of his family was inconsistent with background evidence and him remaining in Turkey for a six week period further detracted from his account of being of an ongoing interest to the authorities.
20. At [15]-[17] the Judge considered the risk factors put forward, which included his Kurdish ethnicity and Alevi faith. However, in considering background evidence she concluded that on these facts alone it was not reasonably likely that the Appellant’s fear was well founded. We find that whilst, not specifically referencing the case of IK, it is clear that the Judge had in mind the relevant factors identified at [14] and made clear findings in relation to why these did not place the Appellant at risk.
21. In relation to the complaint that these two factors were not cumulatively considered with the fact that the Appellant did not have a travel document, which was also a risk factor listed in IK, we note what was said in A (Turkey) at [43]. That is it was likely that travelling on a temporary travel document, there was a likelihood of being interrogated at the point of entry, “because they are identified as being a failed asylum seeker who may have a history, or if the GBTS computer records reveal information regarded as relevant”.
22. Whilst, the Judge did not specifically address the Appellant travelling without a passport, we are satisfied that as she did not accept the Appellant had a history of arrest or political association then in itself or cumulatively taken together with his Alevi faith and Kurdish ethnicity, it would not have changed the outcome of her decision. The Appellant’s claim at its highest that he was an Alevi Kurd without a travel document, considered against the country guidance shows at most he would be stopped at the airport and questioned and checks will be made against the computer records. However, as the Judge had not found the Appellant’s account of political association or subsequent arrest credible then we are satisfied there would be nothing more in his background that could have led to any further attention from the authorities.
23. In summary, the Judge made relevant findings, took all relevant considerations into account, gave adequate reasons, applied the facts to the law and reached rational conclusions. The Judge was not satisfied the Appellant had provided a credible account which could demonstrate risk on return for political reasons, her failure to specifically reference the country guidance of IK, does not detract from her findings. Particularly, she has in substance considered relevant factors i.e. his Alevi faith and Kurdish ethnicity and rejected any risk from these matters alone.
24. It follows the Appellant's appeal to the Upper Tribunal must be dismissed.

Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve the making of an error of law and that decision shall stand.
The appeal to the Upper Tribunal is dismissed.

S Iqbal

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

10th March 2025