Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-000550

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/66635/2024

LP/08672/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

13th June 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LANE
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DOYLE

Between

AA
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECREATRY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Ms J Blockley, counsel, instructed by MRG Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr A Mullen, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at 52 Melville St, Edinburgh, on 3 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
1. We make an anonymity direction because this appeal arises from the appellant’s protection claim.
2. This is an appeal by the Appellant against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Alis, dated 23/11/2024, which dismissed the Appellant’s appeal on all grounds.
Background
3. The Appellant is a citizen of Pakistan. He claimed asylum in the UK on 28/10/2023. The Respondent refused the Appellant’s application on 03/06/2024.
The Judge’s Decision
4. The Appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. On 23/11/2024 First-tier Tribunal Judge Alis (“the Judge”) dismissed the Appellant’s appeal on all grounds.
5. The Respondent lodged grounds of appeal, and, on 08/04/2025, Upper Tribunal Judge Owens granted permission to appeal. She said
1. It is at least arguable that the judge has erred at [38] by finding that it was not credible that the appellant would have had a gay relationship in Pakistan because of the attitude to same-sex relationships in Pakistan.
2. The appellant's representative will be expected to deal with the issue of materiality given the unchallenged findings in respect of the appellant's activities in the UK.
The Hearing
6. For the Appellant, Ms Blockley, moved the grounds of appeal. Ms Blockley took us straight to [28] of the decision where the Judge records parties’ agreement that if the appellant is found to be gay, he is entitled to international protection. From there, she took us to [38] of the decision and told us that the Judge’s findings there are irrational.
7. Ms Blockley told us that simply because same-sex relationships are not tolerated in Pakistan the Judge rejects the appellant’s evidence of pursuing a same-sex relationship there. Ms Blockley told us that that finding is contrary to common sense, contrary to country guidance, and contrary to what is known about Pakistan.
8. Ms Blockley took us to [35] of the decision and told us that, there, the Judge finds that the appellant has not been living life as a gay man in the UK. Ms Blockley argued that the Judge does not make a finding about the appellant’s actual sexuality.
9. Ms Blockley told us that the Judge makes irrational findings at [38], and at [35] he conflates the two separate issues of sexual behaviour and sexuality. Ms Blockley asked us to set the Judge’s decision aside.
10. For the respondent, Mr Mullen resisted the appeal. He relied on the respondent’s rule 24 note (dated 22/04/2025) and said that the decision does not contain an error of law, material or otherwise. He asked us to dismiss the appeal and allow the decision to stand
Analysis
11. The Judge’s findings lie between [27] and [38] of the decision. The grounds of appeal do not challenge the Judge’s findings about the appellant’s claimed relationships in the UK, but it is at [35] that the Judge loses his way.
12. The Judge rejects the appellant’s claim to have had several same-sex relationships in the UK, and he gives reasons for rejecting that evidence. When he concludes his analysis, the Judge does not make a finding about the appellant’s sexuality. Instead, in the final sentence of [35], he says
I reject his claim that he has been living a life as a gay man.
13. There is a difference between sexual activity and sexuality. The Judge makes a finding about (lack of) sexual activity but does not make a finding about the appellant’s sexuality.
14. Having considered the manner in which the appellant has lived his life since coming to the UK, the Judge summarily dismisses the appellant’s claim to have had a same-sex relationship in Pakistan in two sentences at [38].
15. The appellant’s claimed relationship in Pakistan is a crucial part of his protection claim and deserves the same amount of detailed consideration and analysis as the Judge gave to the appellant’s claimed activities in the UK. The only reason the Judge gives for rejecting the appellant’s claim to have pursued a same-sex relationship in Pakistan is simply that same-sex relationships are not tolerated in Pakistan.
16. The Judge’s findings at [38] are incomplete and unexplained. That is an inadequacy of reasoning.
17. The absence of specific findings about the appellant’s sexuality and the inadequacy of reasoning at [38] of the decision leave the decision incomplete. There are material errors of law between [35] to [38] of the decision. We therefore set the decision aside.
18. A fresh hearing in the First-tier Tribunal is necessary.
Remittal to First-Tier Tribunal
19. Under Part 3 paragraph 7.2(b) of the Upper Tribunal Practice Statement of the 25th of September 2012 the case may be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal if the Upper Tribunal is satisfied that:
(a) the effect of the error has been to deprive a party before the First-tier Tribunal of a fair hearing or other opportunity for that party’s case to be put to and considered by the First-tier Tribunal; or
(b) the nature or extent of any judicial fact finding which is necessary in order for the decision in the appeal to be re-made is such that, having regard to the overriding objective in rule 2, it is appropriate to remit the case to the First-tier Tribunal.
20. This case is remitted because a new fact-finding exercise is required. None of the findings of fact are to stand and a complete re-hearing is necessary.
21. This case is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal sitting at Manchester to be heard before any First-tier Judge other than Judge Alis. An Urdu interpreter will be required.
Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal errs materially in law.
The Judge’s decision dated 23 November 2024 is set aside.
The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be determined of new.

Signed Paul Doyle Date 9 June 2025
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Doyle