Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case no: UI-2025-000379

First-tier Tribunal Nos:
PA/53612/2024
LP/ 05535/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 28 August 2025

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHAPMAN

Between

AAA
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: In person, assisted by his sister
For the Respondent: Mr J Nappey, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 28 May 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, [the Appellant] (and/or any member of his family, expert, witness or other person the Tribunal considers should not be identified) 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
(and/or other person). Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant is a national of Somalia, born on 17.11.89 in Marka and he is a member of the Shanshiyo clan. In June 2021 the Appellant states that he moved to Mogadishu to work as an ambulance driver, during which time his friend received threats from Al-Shabaab and in May 2022 he was shot in the head and died. The Appellant returned home to Marka in July 2022 and went into hiding, but later obtained work in a perfume shop. On 28 January 2023 Ali Dilaye came demanding money and fired a gun which missed the Appellant but killed the son of the shop owner. The Appellant tried to file police report but he was recognised by someone from Ali Dilaye’s gang and he decided to flee. He arrived in the UK on 20 February 2023 using a passport provided by an agent. On 2 March 2023 the Appellant claimed asylum. He was interviewed and in a decision dated 31 January 2024 his appeal was dismissed.
2. The Appellant appealed and his appeal came before First tier Tribunal Judge Alis for hearing and was dismissed on 12 December 2024. He made an application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on the following grounds:
“a. Whether Judge Alis erred in law by applying ss30-39 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and stating that the Appellant’s fears are unfounded, despite the Appellant’s evidence provided in his Witness Statement, and his fear of the authorities being controlled by AD in Somalia?
b. Whether Judge Alis erred in law by considering whether the Appellant and his family would live safely in Somalia, since his family is hiding in a different city? We further consider the case law of MOJ & Ors (Return to Mogadishu) Somalia CG [2014] UKUT 00442 (IAC) and OA (Somalia) Somalia CG [2022] UKUT 00033 (IAC);
c. Whether Judge Alis erred in law by not carrying out a proper proportionality assessment of Article 8 ECHR by simply giving a ‘brief assessment’? Reliance is made on Gurdeep Kaur v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 135;
d. Whether Judge Alis failed to consider the Appellant’s medical history, although no freestanding art 3 ECHR is considered, and considered whether the Appellant would be able to receive any support upon return to Somalia, therefore purporting a thorough assessment of his article 3 ECHR?”
3. Permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal was granted by UTJ Rastogi on 19 March 2025 in inter alia the following terms:
“2. … the challenge in Ground 1 to the judge’s assessment of the asylum claim appears to lack merits. Nevertheless it is just about arguable that, in evaluating the situation the A may face on return to Somalia, the judge failed to take into account the A’s mental health and the impact that may have on his ability to establish himself or any obstacles there may be to him doing so (Grounds 2-4). It is also arguable that the judge gave inadequate reasons for not finding art 8 engaged on family and/or private life grounds (ground 4).”
4. In a rule 24 response dated 9 April 2025 the SSHD submits that:
(i) The FtTJ correctly applied ss30-33 and s35 NABA 2022; correctly applied the two stage test and applied the correct burdens and standards of proof at [26]-[31] and properly considered internal relocation at [32]-[35] and [38];
(ii) The issue of risk on return falls away in light of the fact that the FtTJ considered in detail at [26]-[31] that the Appellant would not face persecution on return from either AD or Al-Shabaab and he rejected the credibility of the claim; applied OA and was not required to consider risk for the entire family but just the Appellant as an individual;
(iii) It was agreed that article 8 was not the main part of the Appellant’s appeal: [7](c) and given the FtTJ found article 8 was not engaged no consideration of proportionality was necessary;
(iv) It was agreed at the hearing that there was no standalone article 3 medical claim and so the judge was not obliged to consider the Appellant’s medical history.
Hearing
5. The Appellant’s solicitors had come off the record due to a lack of funds and he appeared at the hearing alongside his sister, who speaks English. Mr Nappey sought to rely on the rule 24 response. He submitted that ground 1 of the grounds of appeal had no merit. With regard to grounds 2-4 he submitted that the judge concluded that there would be no risk on return: [26]-[31] of the decision and reasons. He further found that the Appellant and his family could move safely and could internally relocate. The judge applied the headnote of MOJ [2014] UKUT 00442 (IAC) and found that as an ordinary civilian he would not face a real risk of persecution or serious harm and would not be at risk coming from a European location nor would he be seen as a possible supporter of Al Shabaab or be compromised by having lived abroad.
6. With regard to Ground 2, Mr Nappey submitted that the judge set out the issues in the appeal at [7] and [8] and whilst article 8 had not been formally conceded it was not the main part of the claim and did not feature strongly at all: [21]. At [39] the judge held that article 8 was not engaged and so did not go on to consider proportionality. Given that his siblings are adults he would need to show exceptional circumstance. Consequently, this ground falls away as the judge concluded that article 8 was not engaged and there was no material error.
7. With regard to Ground 4 and the medical evidence, Mr Nappey submitted that there was no article 3 medical claim and the evidence referred to in the ASA was not part of counsel’s submission and no separate point had been made that mental healthcare would not be available in Somalia. All the medical records show is that the Appellant was prescribed Promethazine in May/June 2024 [page 21 of 77] but there was no further evidence of his mental health issues or any medication he was taking. This was not pleaded in the ASA or oral submissions and the onus was on the Appellant to show he would struggle on return due to medical issues. The Appellant’s wife and children remain in Somalia and support would be available to him on return. The judge considered all these factors and found no real fear or risk of persecution on return to Somalia. Mr Nappey submitted that there was no material error and the decision of the First tier Tribunal Judge should be upheld.
8. The Appellant’s sister made some comments in response which were of a factual nature in relation to the lack of safety and the Appellant’s mental health difficulties. She said that he was prescribed Promethazine, a sedative but when asked she said they did not have any evidence from eg a CMHT. She said that whilst the rest of the family had travelled to the United Kingdom, he was left behind because there was no-one to look after their grandmother. He could not leave because of society and it was not safe for him to travel due to the situation.
Decision and reasons
9. I find no error of law in relation to Ground 1 of the grounds of challenge. As the rule 24 makes clear given that the Appellant claimed asylum after the coming into force of the relevant provisions of NABA ie sections on 28 June 2022, the FtTJ properly applied the provisions of NABA 2022 when determining the appeal. The FtTJ was entitled to take account of the fact that in neither of his two interviews did the Appellant mention any fear of Al Shabaab [29].
10. I find no error of law with regard to Ground 2 of the grounds of challenge. As was submitted the issue was risk on return to the Appellant not his family members and having found that there was no risk on return the FtTJ was not obliged to consider the circumstances of his family members nor the issue of internal relocation, since the judge found that the Appellant could return to Somalia, either to his home or to Mogadishu: [32]-[35].
11. With regard to Ground 3 and whether the FtTJ had: “erred in law by not carrying out a proper proportionality assessment of Article 8 ECHR by simply giving a ‘brief assessment’? the FtTJ held at 39: “As for an article 8 ECHR the Appellant has failed to demonstrate very significant obstacles and his siblings are all adults. He lives away from his family and whilst I acknowledge the supporting letters I do not find article 8 ECHR is engaged.” In light of the fact that the FtTJ found, sustainably on the basis of the absence of evidence before him to show that the Appellant had more than normal emotional ties with his siblings cf. Kugathas [2003] EWCA Civ 31 that article 8 was not engaged, it was not incumbent upon him to go on to consider proportionality. Whilst brief, his consideration is adequate in the circumstances and discloses no error of law.
12. Ground 4 asserts that the FtTJ failed to consider the Appellant’s medical history but I find this is incorrect. At [29] the FtTJ held: “His medical records do not explain his inability to recall the events and bearing in mind he came here to claim asylum it lacks credibility he did not mention Al-Shabab until July 2024 which was fifteen months after he had arrived.” No freestanding article 3 claim was raised, as Ground 4 of the grounds of appeal acknowledges.
13. The evidence before the FtT of the Appellant’s mental health difficulties is set out at [42] of his statement at SB 412 where he states that he suffers from depression and anxiety as well as difficulties sleeping; that he is taking Promethazine and recently had a panic attack and was feeling suicidal and called an ambulance. The medical records from the White House surgery support what he says in his statement including that he has had suicidal thoughts. On 30 April 2024 his GP notes state that he will be referred to BDAABIT and he was advised about a crisis line but there is no correspondence about this nor any report about his mental health from a specialist.
14. In the absence of evidence and any further particularisation of this ground of challenge, I have concluded there is no error of law in this respect either. The FtTJ did have regard to the medical records and it is not clear from those records what support would be required by the Appellant if returned to Somalia.
Notice of Decision
15. For the reasons set out above I find there is no error of law in the decision and reasons of the First tier Tribunal Judge, whose decision dismissing the appeal is upheld.

Rebecca Chapman

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Chapman

8 August 2025