Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-000243

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/56985/2024
LP/10814/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

9th July 2025

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RICHARDS

Between

SG
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: The appellant represented himself
For the Respondent: Mr K Ojo, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 23 June 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. The appellant appeals with permission against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 15 November 2024 dismissing his appeal against the respondent’s decision dated 1 March 2024 to refuse his asylum claim made on 4 October 2022.
2. I have continued the order for anonymity made by the First-tier Tribunal. In continuing the order for anonymity, I have had regard to Guidance Note 2022 No.2: Anonymity Orders and Hearings in Private. I have considered the strong public interest in open justice. However, in this case it is outweighed by the United Kingdom’s obligations towards applicants for international protection and the need to protect the confidentiality of the asylum process.
Background and procedural history
3. The background is set out in the hearing bundle of 633 pages. In essence, the appellant is a Citizen of Turkey and claims that if he is returned to Turkey, he will be subject to persecution by the authorities of that country on the basis of his political views and actions.
4. The appellant appealed against the refusal of claims by the respondent and was represented by Counsel at the First-tier Tribunal hearing that took place on 13 November 2024. The First-tier Tribunal judge (the “judge”) made adverse findings against the appellant in relation to his credibility, the timings of when he raised reasons for his claim, and also the absence of aspects of potentially supporting evidence.
5. The appellant applied to the First-tier Tribunal for permission to appeal on numerous grounds, and that was refused by a different First-tier Tribunal judge on 23 December 2024 on the basis that they thought there was no arguable error of law.
6. The appellant renewed his application for permission to appeal at the Upper Tribunal on numerous grounds, some of which were not raised in his initial request for permission to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. UTJ Reeds on 14 April 2025 granted permission to appeal and said amongst other things as follows:
6. Not all of the grounds identify arguable errors of law, but I do not restrict the grant of permission.
7. As stated above the appellant has provided a number of documents purporting to be grounds of appeal. Those grounds (and not any new grounds) should be put into one document which should be sent to the Tribunal and to the respondent no later than 14 days after this document is sent to the parties.
7. The appellant’s document in response the UTJ Reed’s direction can be found at pg221-222 of the bundle and stands as his grounds of appeal in this case. The appellant has filed various other documents that post-date this and they are relevant only insofar as they relate to these grounds.
8. At the hearing before me, the appellant represented himself and had the benefit of a Turkish interpreter.
9. The appellant had the bundle and the salient documents. Mr Ojo, on behalf of the respondent, did not have access to the full bundle but was content to proceed on the basis that he thought he had access to all the salient documents that would be needed for this error of law hearing.
10. The appellant said that he relied on his grounds of appeal and written submissions, and also made oral submissions expanding on his grounds and answered questions of clarification from me. He said that if an error of law is found, the decision should be remade in the Upper Tribunal.
11. Mr Ojo submitted that the respondent continues to oppose all of the grounds of appeal and said that if an error of law is found, the decision should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal
Findings – Error of Law
12. As there are a large number of grounds of appeal that have been raised by the appellant, I have structured these findings by setting out each ground as they appear in the grounds of appeal, along with my findings in relation to it.
Ground 1.1 Failure to properly assess political motivation in tax prosecution
13. The appellant says that the judge failed to assess whether tax prosecutions against the appellant were politically motivated and overlooked evidence relating to the appellant’s media activities critical of the Turkish government. He submitted that relevant cases were Horvath v SSHD [2000] UKHL 37 and BA (Demonstrators in Turkey) v SSHD [2017] UKUT 196 (IAC). However the appellant was unable to tell me what these cases said, which parts he was relying on, or how they were relevant.
14. I find that there is no error of law identified in relation to this ground as the judge has made clear findings about this issue at [20], and the judge records a summary of the appellant’s oral evidence at the First-tier Tribunal hearing and for example at [9] records what the appellant said the Turkish authorities told him directly at his media company.
15. The judge is not under a duty to record all of the evidence before him, and I am satisfied from what he has written, that he did take due note of the contents of all the relevant documents, oral evidence, and submissions before him.
Ground 1.2 Misapplication of the Tanveer Ahmed principles
16. The appellant argued that the judge narrowly focused on inconsistencies in the documentation rather than a broader evaluation of the evidence, and he said this broader evaluation was required by the reasoning in Tanveer Ahmed (Pakistan) [2002] UKIAT 00439.
17. I find that there is no error of law identified in relation to this ground as in my judgement the judge has conducted a holistic assessment of the evidence as in [18]-[21] he makes reference to various aspects of the appellant’s oral evidence, refers to various documents and makes independent findings on them, and refers to the submissions put forward on behalf of the appellant. These references in the judge’s reasoning are sufficient for me to find that he has conducted a broad evaluation of the evidence appropriately.
Ground 1.3 Flawed credibility assessment under Section 8
18. The appellant argues that the judge overemphasized his delay in claiming asylum and ignored the appellant's attempts to seek asylum in other countries, and sought to rely on JT (Cameroon) v SSHD [2008] EWCA Civ 878, and argues that this amounts to a flawed credibility assessment. However the appellant was unable to provide me with any particulars on what JT says and how it is relevant. The appellant said that the relevant part of the judge’s determination he objected to here is in [15].
19. I find that there is no error of law identified in this ground. In [15], the judge was summarising what the appellant’s own barrister was saying on his behalf. In the judge’s findings at [18]-[21] he makes reference to various aspects of the appellant’s oral evidence, refers to various documents and makes independent findings on them, and refers to the submissions put forward on behalf of the appellant. In my judgement there is no merit in this ground and the judge conducted his assessment of the appellant’s credibility appropriately and has given multiple reasons and examples for the findings he reached.
Ground 1.4 Inadequate consideration of country conditions
20. The appellant argued that the judge failed to engage with various piece of evidence, for example from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International which are contained in the bundle at pp130-191, and failed to conduct an individualised risk assessment contrary to HJ (Iran) v SSHD [2010] UKSC 31.
21. I find that there is no error of law identified in this ground as the documents referred to by the appellant were only submitted after the judge had promulgated his decision and thus they were not before him when he made his decision and he need not have referred to them. Additionally, in my judgement the judge has appropriately conducted an individualised risk assessment and this is clear, for example, in [21].
Ground 1.5 Insufficient engagement with Article 8 and public interest
22. The appellant argued that the judge did not properly balance private and family life interests and incorrectly applied both Agyarko v SSHD [2017] UKSC 11 and Razgar [2004] UKHL 27. The appellant was unable to say what passages of these two cases he thought were relevant, what the cases said, or how the judge had failed in the appellant’s view to apply them correctly.
23. I find that there is no error of law identified in this ground. Nowhere in the skeleton argument put forward on behalf of the appellant at the First-tier Tribunal does it mention anything with regard to Article 8 and private and family life interests, nor has this been particularised before me. In my judgement the judge at [22] has done sufficient to demonstrate both: his decision in relation to Article 8, Appendix FM, paragraphs 276ADE to 276DH; and also his reasoning for those decisions.
Ground 2.1 Failure to assess immediate asylum claim made at port of entry.
24. The appellant argued that the judge did not consider that he made his asylum claim at the port of entry in 2022 which he says is an indicator of credibility.
25. I find that there is no error of law identified in this ground. At [9] the judge explicitly records what the appellant said in oral evidence on this point which is a clear indicator that the judge had it in mind when making his overall credibility assessment and in my judgement the judge has sufficiently shown that he has weighed the evidence on credibility appropriately.
Ground 2.2 Mischaracterisation and inadequate assessment of witness evidence
26. The appellant argued that the judge dismissed a detailed corroborative witness statement unfairly as ‘generic’. When I asked the appellant for clarification on what he meant by this ground of appeal he referred me to [13], which is a summary of the appellant’s oral re-examination by his barrister, but was unable to identify what witness statement he was referring to or where or how the judge had in his view mischaracterised it.
27. I find that there is no error of law identified in this ground as the ground is not sufficiently particularised and fails to identify what the claimed error of law is.
Ground 2.3 Insufficient consideration of current country conditions
28. The appellant argued that the judge ignored updated human rights evidence, resulting in a flawed risk assessment. When asked for clarification the appellant said that the evidence he was referring to was that considered in Ground 1.4 and that he had nothing to add.
29. I find that there is no error of law identified in this ground for the same reasons that I have rejected Ground 1.4.
Ground 2.4 Excessively adverse credibility findings based on minor inconsistencies
30. The appellant argued that the judge placed disproportionate weight on minor discrepancies, contrary to HK v SSHD [2006] EWCA Civ 1037. The appellant was unable to identify what parts of HK he sought to rely on, or how he thought it was relevant to his ground of appeal, or what HK said at all. He argued that the judge overemphasized an error the appellant had made in relation to one date when making his credibility assessment.
31. I find that there is no error of law identified in this ground. In the judge’s findings at [18]-[21] he: makes reference to various aspects of the appellant’s oral evidence; refers to various documents and makes independent findings on them; and refers to the submissions put forward on behalf of the appellant. This in my judgement demonstrates that the judge took a holistic approach to the evidence when assessing the evidence and formed his credibility findings on a range of factors and not just one inconsistency.
Ground 3.1 Non-consideration of witness statement
32. The appellant argued that the judge did not reference his primary witness statement (pp.257-262) and that his failure to do so constituted an error of law.
33. I find that there is no error of law identified in this ground as: the judge did refer to his primary witness statement at [7]; in [17] the judge states that he gave careful consideration to all the documentary evidence; and the requirements on the judge in line with [2 iii] of Volpi & Anor. v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464 are not that he need mention every specific piece of evidence, and further that I am bound unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary to assume that the trial judge has taken the whole of the evidence into consideration. In my judgement there is no compelling evidence to persuade me that the judge has failed to take the whole of the evidence into consideration.
Ground 3.2 Documentary evidence dismissed incorrectly
34. The appellant argued that court documents and media content were dismissed without proper application of Tanveer Ahmed. He clarified that he thought the judge had not properly taken the documents available to him in his bundle into consideration.
35. I find that there is no error of law identified in this ground for the same reasons as given above.
Ground 3.3 Non-assessment of sur place activities
36. The appellant said that political activities undertaken in the UK such as TikTok videos and interviews were ignored by the judge, and in particularising this ground he highlighted the evidence at pg75-78 and pp90-97 of the bundle.
37. I find that there is no error of law identified in this ground because the activities referred to are not sur place activities as they appear to have taken place in Turkey. The one exception being a photograph that appears to be of the appellant standing in front of the Burj Khalifa in Dubai and innocuous. In any event, for the reasoning given above, in my judgement the judge did perform an adequate assessment of all the evidence that was before him.
Ground 3.4 Generic risk analysis under Article 3
38. The appellant claimed that the judge failed to conduct an individualised risk assessment in relation to Article 3 and claimed that this was contrary to the binding precedent of Chahal v UK [1996] 23 EHRR 413. However in oral submissions the appellant said that he had nothing to say on this ground, and thus did not particularise what aspect of Chahal he thought the judge had failed to apply appropriately.
39. I find that there is no error of law identified in this ground as the ground has not been adequately particularised, and at [15] the judge records the appellant’s barrister’s concession that there was no Article 3 issue being raised in this case, and so the judge was not under a duty to be any more explicit than he has been in his determination.
Ground 3.5 Procedural fairness and remedy requested
40. Although this was submitted as a ground of appeal, the appellant clarified that it was actually a submission that due to all the errors he said he identified in the other grounds of appeal, the Upper Tribunal should retain and remake the decision.
41. As this is not in fact a ground of appeal, I need make no findings in relation to it.
Conclusion
42. I have carefully considered the written and oral submissions of both the appellant and those put forward on behalf of the respondent and find that none of the grounds of appeal are substantiated and that in my judgement there was no material error of law in the First-tier Tribunal proceedings and determination. Thus, this appeal is dismissed.
Notice of Decision
The appellant’s appeal is dismissed. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve a material error of law and stands.

DUTJ Richards

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

4 July 2025