Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-000771

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/52408/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

29th May 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KAMARA

Between

WS
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent
Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr S Bukhari, Bukhari Chambers
For the Respondent: Ms L Clewly, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 27 May 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 has been granted permission to appeal the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing his appeal following a hearing which took place on 28 November 2024.
Anonymity
2. An anonymity direction was made previously and is maintained because this appeal concerns a protection claim.
Factual Background
3. The appellant is a national of Pakistan, aged 25, who arrived in the United Kingdom during January 2022 on a student visa. He claimed asylum in August 2022 owing to a fear of the Taliban in his home area. That claim was rejected in a decision of the respondent dated 23 January 2024.
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal
4. At the hearing before the First-tier Tribunal, the issues in dispute were, firstly, whether the appellant was of adverse interest to the Tehreek-e-Taliban (TTP) in Swat District; secondly, whether he could reasonably be expected to relocate and lastly, whether the decision breached the appellant’s Article 8 ECHR rights. The judge found in favour of the appellant in relation to the first issue, concluding at [24] that the appellant had demonstrated that he would face persecution in his home area and there would be insufficient protection there. On the second issue, the judge concluded that there was no evidence that the Taliban could locate the appellant elsewhere in Pakistan and that it was not unreasonable for him to relocate. Lastly, the judge concluded that the appellant could not meet the requirements of Appendix Private Life and in particular there was little evidence to support his claim that there would be very significant obstacles to his integration in Pakistan.
The appeal to the Upper Tribunal
5. There were five grounds of appeal which can be summarised as follows:
i. The judge applied an excessively high standard of proof to the issue of internal relocation;
ii.. In dismissing the possibility of Taliban reach beyond the Swat region, the judge did not engage with or properly consider background evidence that the Taliban and TTP operated across various regions of Pakistan;
iii. The judge’s assessment of whether internal relocation would be reasonable/unduly harsh was inadequately reasoned and failed to take account of the Appellant’s individual circumstances;
iv. The judge failed to give express consideration to whether return would breach Article 3 ECHR;
v. The judge’s reasoning in relation to humanitarian protection and Article 8 was cursory and inadequate
6. A partial grant of permission to appeal was made on grounds ii-v alone. The judge granting permission made the following remarks.
Ground 1 is not arguable. The judge expressly directed himself that the lower standard of proof applied to the issue of internal relocation (§25) and referred to the lower standard again at §29.
However, Grounds 2 and 3 are arguable. The judge’s conclusion that the Appellant would not be at risk from the Taliban appears to have been based on his rejection of the Appellant’s claim that the Taliban could and would use systems linked to the national ID card; the judge’s reasoning did not explain what weight he had given to the objective evidence suggesting Taliban/TPP activity in other regions of Pakistan, which was potentially significant given the acceptance of the Appellant’s participation in activities supporting social issues and women’s rights. It is also arguable that the judge, in concluding that internal relocation would be reasonable, failed to consider both the Appellant’s individual circumstances, cultural and social differences between regions, and the objective evidence in the CPIN about serious housing shortages and the treatment of internally displaced persons.
The grounds of appeal do not identify why there was a material difference between the Appellant’s protection claim and his humanitarian protection and Article 3 claims, and it seems to me that the judge was not required to reason those issues afresh given his conclusion as to internal relocation. However, given the overlap between the claims I am prepared to grant permission on Grounds 4 and 5.
7. The respondent filed no Rule 24 response.
The error of law hearing
8. The matter comes before the Upper Tribunal to determine whether the decision contains an error of law and, if it is so concluded, to either re-make the decision or remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. A bundle was submitted by the appellant containing, inter alia, the core documents in the appeal, including the appellant’s and respondent’s bundles before the First-tier Tribunal. A skeleton argument was also provided on behalf of the appellant.
9. The hearing was attended by representatives for both parties as above. Both representatives made submissions and the conclusions below reflect those arguments and submissions where necessary.
Discussion
10. I invited submissions from the parties on grounds two and three as the outcome of these alleged errors would be determinative of the issues raised in the remaining grounds, given that the same facts were relied upon and there were no freestanding Humanitarian Protection and Article 8 claims.
11. In relation to evidence supporting the submission that the Taliban had reach outside of Swat District, Mr Bukhari sought to rely upon background evidence in the form of a country of information report on Pakistan issued by the government of the Netherlands dated 5 July 2024. He particularly relied upon references to militant violence being nationwide between 2023-2024 and to the TTP extending its reach to the provinces of Sindh and Punjab.
12. In response to my concern as to whether this evidence was adduced before the First-tier Tribunal, Mr Bukhari conceded that it was not. In response to my query as to what background country evidence was before the judge as to the the reach and activities of the TTP beyond Swat District, Mr Bukhari accepted that there was none and sought to rely on screenshots provided by the appellant which, in any event, were restricted to descriptions of militant attacks in Swat District.
13. In view of the complete absence of any evidence before the First-tier Tribunal to support the appellant’s subjective fear that the TTP operated outside of Swat District or could locate him throughout Pakistan, the judge was entitled to conclude at [28] that there was no evidence to that effect.
14. In relation to the issue of internal relocation, criticism is made of the judge’s description of the appellant at [30] as being fit and well, having no medical conditions, and educated. I heard no submissions to suggest that the judge made any error of approach here. While Mr Bukhari submitted that the appellant had been adversely affected by the events in Swat District, he conceded that there was no medical evidence to support this.
15. The judge engaged fully with the appellant’s circumstances in finding that it would not unduly harsh for the appellant to relocate to avoid the TTP as can be seen from [25-30] of the decision. Furthermore, the judge considered the appellant’s concern that he would have difficulty in relocating owing to the social dynamics in Swat and was entitled to conclude that the appellant had provided no detail as to these claimed difficulties.
16. I make the observation that the appellant has not been well served by those representing him. The evidence in the Netherlands report was available at the time of the hearing and the judge could have been referred to it. It may well be that further evidence might have been available. In addition, if the appellant’s case is that he has been adversely affected by traumatic events he experienced, a competent representative might have considered obtaining medical evidence.
17. It follows that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal contained no error of law.
Notice of Decision
The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve the making of an error on a point of law.
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is shall stand.

T Kamara

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

28 May 2025

NOTIFICATION OF APPEAL RIGHTS
1. A person seeking permission to appeal against this decision must make a written application to the Upper Tribunal. Any such application must be received by the Upper Tribunal within the appropriate period after this decision was sent to the person making the application. The appropriate period varies, as follows, according to the location of the individual and the way in which the Upper Tribunal’s decision was sent:
2. Where the person who appealed to the First-tier Tribunal is in the United Kingdom at the time that the application for permission to appeal is made, and is not in detention under the Immigration Acts, the appropriate period is 12 working days (10 working days, if the notice of decision is sent electronically).
3. Where the person making the application is in detention under the Immigration Acts, the appropriate period is 7 working days (5 working days, if the notice of decision is sent electronically).
4. Where the person who appealed to the First-tier Tribunal is outside the United Kingdom at the time that the application for permission to appeal is made, the appropriate period is 38 days (10 working days, if the notice of decision is sent electronically).
5. A “working day” means any day except a Saturday or a Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday or a bank holiday.
6. The date when the decision is “sent’ is that appearing on the covering letter or covering email