Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-000834

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/53500/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

18th June 2025

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DEAKIN

Between

UB
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr P Richardson, counsel, instructed by Lawmatic Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms S Nwachuku, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 23 April 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. UB is a Bangladeshi national. He arrived in the United Kingdom on 3 December 2022 and claimed asylum on 14 February 2023. The Secretary of State refused the UB’s asylum claim by decision of 30 January 2024. UB appealed against that refusal to the First-tier Tribunal and his appeal was heard by FTJ Thorne. FTJ Thorne dismissed UB’s appeal by decision of 29 December 2024. FTJ Saffer granted UB permission to appeal against FTJ Thorne’s determination by order of 18 February 2025. That appeal now comes before me.
UB’s Asylum Claim
2. UB claims to have joined the Bangladesh Jatiotabadi Chatra Dal [‘BJCD’] (which he describes at para. 7 of his 22 October 2024 witness statement as the “student wing of the Bangladesh National Party”) in 2018. He states that he became heavily involved in the BJCD and that he became Vice President (witness statement para. 8). I note that UB’s claim to have been Vice President of BJCD is not consistent with his Preliminary Information Questionnaire, in which he states that he was ‘publicity secretary’ (Q.2(b) and 5).
3. UB claims that his profile in the BJCD brought him to the attention of Bangladeshi law enforcement agencies and the Bangladesh Chatra League [‘BCL’] (which he describes as the student wing of the Bangladesh Awami League [‘BAL’]. In particular, UB claims that he and co-activists were attacked by members of the BCL at a meeting on 6 November 2021, that they were not assisted by law enforcement, who, in fact, joined in the assault. UB states that several of his colleagues were arrested at this meeting and that, while he was not arrested, he sustained injuries.
4. UB claims that, following this meeting, a false complaint was lodged against him and that he was later implicated in what he calls a “fabricated case” (witness statement para. 12). As a result he claims to have left home and begun living at a friend’s house. UB claims that his mother informed him that BCL members had come to look for him at his home address. UB accordingly decided to move to the United Kingdon to complete his undergraduate studies.
5. UB entered the United Kingdom, on 3 December 2022. He states that shortly after his arrival he then became aware that a further case had been filed against him and an arrest warrant issued. He stated that he became aware of his family being harassed, including an attack on his brother, and that this affected UB’s mental health with the result that he was unable to keep up with his education in the United Kingdom. UB noted further that disruption of his family’s business prevented him from being able to pay his university fees.
6. UB claimed that if he were to return to Bangladesh, authorities would either “arrest and torture [him] in prison or BCL would just kill me if they found me…” (witness statement para. 19). UB accordingly claimed asylum.
FTJ Thorne’s Decision of 29 December 2024
7. Insofar as is material to this appeal, the Judge addressed UB’s appeal as follows:
8. At paras. 15 and 16 of the determination, the Judge listed in summary the documents to which he had referred. The Judge referred to CPIN Bangladesh: Actors of protection Version 2.0 November 2023 and the Country Policy and Information Note Bangladesh: Political parties and affiliation Version 3.0 (citing in particular paras. 2.4.7; 5.3.2); and Country Information Note Bangladesh: Documentation Version 3.0 May 2024 (citing 6.1.1 and 6.9.1).
9. The Judge did not accept “the core of the appellant’s account that he has a genuine and well-founded fear of persecution in Bangladesh for any reason” (para. 21 of the determination). The Judge did not accept that UB was involved in the BNP/BJDC in “anything other than a low-level position” and he found that there was “…no objective evidence that this college was particularly important or that his position would have caused him to be singled out from the many millions of other members of the BNP in Bangladesh” (para. 22 of the determination). In light of the above, the Judge did not accept that UB had been persecuted by the Awami League as claimed or that they had any interest in UB in the past or presently (para. 23 of the determination).
10. The Judge found UB’s credibility to be undermined by the delay in UB’s claiming asylum and by the fact that UB was unable to give detailed answers about the values, logo and/or slogan of the BNP (para. 24 of the determination).
11. Given his credibility findings, having considered the evidence in the round and the Country evidence, and in reliance on the case of Tanveer Ahmed (Documents unreliable and forged) Pakistan* [2002] UKIAT 00439, the Judge decided that little weight could be given to FIRs, Arrest Warrants, documents from Bangladesh and photographs (para. 25 of the determination). The Judge noted that not all the documents relied on by UB had been completed by a certified United Kingdom translation service (para. 26 of the determination). The Judge noted further that UB submitted the documents prior to when he said he had obtained them (para. 27 of the determination).
12. The Judge gave little weight to photographic evidence purporting to show injuries to UB’s brother as it was not possible to verify the identify of the person in the photographs or establish how or why his injuries had been sustained (para. 28 of the determination).
13. The Judge considered the Appellant’s sur place activities. The Judge did “not accept that anything [UB] has done in the UK would bring him to the adverse attention of the authorities in Bangladesh now” (para. 29 of the determination).
14. The Judge concluded as follows:
I take into account the general country evidence that in general, low-level members of opposition groups are unlikely to be of ongoing interest to the authorities and are unlikely to be subject to treatment that is sufficiently serious, by its nature or repetition, to amount to persecution. I conclude that at best A was a low-level supporter of the BNP and has never been persecuted in Bangladesh and is not at risk now (so many years after leaving the country) if returned. (para. 30 of the determination).
15. Having reached this conclusion the Judge went on as follows:
31. In addition I cannot ignore the new Country policy and information note: political situation, Bangladesh, December 2024 Updated 20 December 2024. This report was issued after the hearing and therefore the parties’ representatives were not given an opportunity to comment on it. However bearing in mind its contents and my judgement that it would not be necessary or proportionate to reinstate the hearing to consider new oral submissions or invite written submissions, I have decided to take it into account.
32. This new report is more up to date than the expert report submitted by A. It states the following:
“Leaders, members, and supporters of political groups are unlikely to face persecution or serious harm from non-state and/or rogue state actors. Although politically motivated violence occurs, it has generally declined since the July and August protests. The number of people who are affected remains low in proportion to the size of the major parties. Leaders, members, and supporters of the BNP Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI) and their auxiliary (student and youth) organisations are unlikely to face persecution or serious harm from the state.”
16. The Judge dismissed UB’s appeal on asylum and humanitarian protection grounds. The Judge went on to consider UB’s appeal on human rights grounds. It is not necessary to consider his reasoning on these points in the present appeal.
The Grounds of Appeal
17. In his grounds of appeal UB advanced 5 grounds:
18. Ground 1: the Judge failed to consider relevant evidence/give sufficient weight to the evidence: (i) the Judge gave insufficient weight to corroborative evidence (including a reference letter from the Convenor of the BJP and an expert report on the political situation in Bangladesh) and dismissed them without adequate reasoning.
19. Ground 2: the Judge misinterpreted or mischaracterised the evidence: (i) the Judge’s rejection of the authenticity of the arrest warrants and FIRs submitted by UB relied “excessively on generalised country information regarding document reliability in Bangladesh…” and the Judge failed to conduct the “nuanced analysis” required and (ii) the Tribunal’s finding that UB occupied a “low level” position contradicts UB’s evidence that he was a Vice President of the BJCD.
20. Mr Richardson supplemented these submissions orally arguing that (i) as the Judge’s reason for giving little weight to the documentary evidence turned on the Judge’s finding as to UB’s credibility and those credibility findings were flawed, it followed that the Judge’s findings as to the weight that could be placed on the documents were unsafe and (ii) the principle in Tanveer Ahmed did not excuse the Judge from the task of considering the contents of the relevant documents.
21. Ground 3: procedural unfairness: the Judge’s reliance on a CPIN issued after the hearing and without affording the parties the opportunity to make submissions gave rise to unfairness.
22. Ground 4: inadequate consideration of risk on return: the Judge erred in (i) relying on generalised country information and ignoring UB’s specific circumstances and (ii) concluding that UB’s sur place activities would not expose him to risk on return.
23. Ground 5: UB challenged the Judge’s approach to his Article 8 ECHR claim.
24. Mr Richardson indicated in oral submissions that Grounds 4 and 5 were not pursued. I therefore do not consider them further.
Discussion
25. Mr Richardson amplified his pleaded ground in submissions in relation to Ground 1.
a. Mr Richardson submitted that the Judge relied solely on the Secretary of State’s reasons for refusal letter when setting out the basis for UB’s asylum claim and that, in so doing, the Judge failed to note that UB had claimed to be Vice President and not only Publicity Secretary of his university BJCD union.
b. Mr Richardson also submitted that the Judge had failed to have regard to the evidence regarding political violence as set out at Country Policy and Information Note: Bangladesh: Political parties and affiliation paras. 11.2.1 and 11.2.2; the lawyer’s letter of 27 October 2024 (referring to the cases against UB and advising him not to return to Bangladesh) and a 2018 Human Rights Watch Report “’Creating Panic’ Bangladesh Election Crackdown on Political Opponents and Critics” and its reference to a “huge number of false cases filed in recent months”.
26. In my judgment the Judge did not err as alleged in Ground 1, as amplified in Mr Richardson’s oral submissions.
27. The principles articulated by Haddon-Cave J (as he then was) in the headnote to Budhathoki (reasons for decisions) [2014] UKUT 00341 (IAC) are well established, namely:
“It is generally unnecessary and unhelpful for First-tier Tribunal judgments to rehearse every detail or issue raised in a case. This leads to judgments becoming overly long and confused and is not a proportionate approach to deciding cases. It is, however, necessary for judges to identify and resolve key conflicts in the evidence and explain in clear and brief terms their reasons, so that the parties can understand why they have won or lost”
The Judge’s determination is consistent with these requirements and discloses no error of law.
28. Dealing with Mr Richardson’s points in turn:
29. First, the Judge expressly had regard to the Convenor’s letter of 15 January 2023 and the expert report of 25 September 2024 (see para 16 of the determination). An assessment of weight is generally a matter for the primary decision maker and I find that the weight afforded to the evidence by the Judge was reasonably open to him.
30. The Judge’s reasons for giving little weight to material from Bangladesh are set out at para. 25 of the determination. The Judge found that, having taken into account his findings as to UB’s credibility, the evidence as a whole, and the background country evidence of the widespread use of forged documents, he gave little weight to the documents from Bangladesh relied on by UB. In my judgment this reasoning was adequate and he was not required to address the contents of the documents in more detail. The Judge’s approach discloses no error of law.
31. As to the expert report, Ms Nwachuku submitted that the expert report is principally focussed on events which took place in 2024 and post-date UB’s leaving Bangladesh. I agree. Those sections of the expert report dealing with pre-2024 issues are of limited relevance and do not undermine the Judge’s finding that, as a low-level supporter of the BNP, UB would not be at risk on return. In my judgment the reasons for the Judge’s findings are adequate and he was not required to expressly address the expert report.
32. Second, the Judge was aware of UB’s claim to have been a Vice President of his BJCP Union, expressly recording this at para. 13 of his determination. The Judge also explained why he did not consider UB’s evidence to establish that he had ever been anything other than a low-level activist (para. 22 of the determination). In my judgment this conclusion was open to the Judge and the Judge’s reasons for this conclusion were adequate and disclose no error of law.
33. Third, it is correct that the Judge did not expressly refer to the lawyer’s letter of 27 October 2024 or to the reference at page 16 the 2018 Human Rights Watch Report “Creating Panic” to the significant number of false claims made against BNP supports. The Judge did, however, state at para. 16 of the determination that he had read and taken into account all the documents submitted by both parties and there is no reason to doubt that statement. In my judgment the Judge was not required to expressly refer to the lawyer’s letter (which was in any event of limited relevance given the Judge’s findings as to the weight to be afforded to the documents relied on to prove the claimed criminal charges) or to an individual paragraph in one of the underlying reports relied on by UB. I do not consider UB’s submissions on these points to disclose any error of law.
34. Fourth, the Judge expressly had regard to Country Policy and Information Note: Bangladesh: Political parties and affiliation at para. 17 of his judgment and he quoted the key conclusion recorded at CPIN para. 2.4.7. In my judgment the reasons for the Judge’s conclusions are clear from his judgment and he was not required to cite and address individual paragraphs within the CPIN setting out the evidence on every point touching UB’s case.
35. Finally, I do not accept that the Judge’s findings as to UB’s credibility were not open to him or otherwise disclosed an error of law. In my judgment the Judge’s approach to UB’s credibility in no way undermines the Judge’s assessment of the weight to be placed on the documentary evidence relied on.
36. For the reasons set out above I dismiss Ground 1 of UB’s appeal.
37. As to Ground 2 in my judgment the Judge did not misinterpret or mischaracterise the evidence and the Judge’s decision to place little weight on the documents relied on by UB did not rely excessively on generalised country information. I find that the Judge’s conclusion was properly open to him.
38. The Judge found the credibility of UB’s claim to be of interest to the Awami League to be undermined by the delay in his claim for asylum (para. 23 of the determination) and his inability to detail the BNP’s values, slogan, or logo (para. 24 of the determination). In my judgment the Judge was not required to expressly address UB’s claim that his description of the BNP logo had been mistranslated and, even if he were, that error was not material to the Judge’s overall conclusions. The Judge noted that the background evidence suggested the widespread availability of forged documents (para. 25 of the determination). He noted that not all the documents provided had been certified by a UK translation service and, in any event, that genuine FIRs could be obtained through corruption and bribery (para. 26 of the determination). The Judge noted a discrepancy in UB’s account of how he came by the documents – UB claimed to have been sent them via relatives in September 2024 when he in fact submitted them to the Home Office in January 2024 (para. 27 of the determination). As set out above, the Judge concluded that the photographic evidence of what UB claimed were injuries to his brother could be given little weight and this was not contested by Mr Richardson (para. 28 of the determination).
39. In oral submissions Mr Richardson observed that UB had, in fact, subsequently served certified translations of the documents relied on. That is correct. However, in light of the Judge’s reasons as a whole and, in particular, his findings that ‘genuine’ documents could be obtained through corruption and bribery I do not consider this error to be material.
40. In my judgment the Judge properly had regard to a range of factors when deciding to give the documentary evidence relied on by UB little weight. The Judge’s conclusions on this point were adequately reasoned and disclose no error of law.
41. I have addressed Mr Richardson’s submission that the Judge’s conclusion that UB occupied a low-level position was inconsistent with his being a Vice President of his college BJDC student wing above. In my judgment it was open to the Judge to conclude that UB’s position was a “low-level” role and that UB had not established that “his position would have caused him to be singled out from the many millions of other members of the BNP in Bangladesh.” (see para. 22)
42. As to Ground 3, it is clear from the judgment that the Judge had regard to the Country policy and information note: political situation, Bangladesh, December 2024 Updated 20 December 2024 in reaching his conclusion. This document post-dated the hearing (which took place on 17 December 2024). The Judge expressly noted that the parties had not had an opportunity to comment on the document but determined that it would be neither necessary nor proportionate to reconvene a hearing or invite submissions to enable the parties to make submissions on the CPIN.
43. In my judgment the Judge’s failure to invite submissions on this point constituted a breach of natural justice and an error of law.
44. It is therefore necessary to assess whether that error of law was material. In my judgment it was not. The Judge concluded that UB was a low-level member of the BJCD, that he had never been persecuted in Bangladesh, and that he was not now at risk of persecution. These findings did not rely in any way on the 20 December 2024 CPIN. The Judge’s reference to the 20 December 2024 CPIN was expressly stated to be “in addition” to those conclusions. In my Judgement the citation at para. 32 of the determination is therefore not material to the Judge’s key conclusions.
45. I note that that the Judge does begin para. 32 with the sentence “This new report is more up to date than the expert report submitted by A”. This raises the question of whether the Judge relied on the 20 December 2024 CPIN when considering the weight to be afforded the Expert Report. In my judgment, given my findings as to the relevance of the Expert Report above, any such error would not be material in any event. Further, the passage from the 20 December 2024 CPIN cited by the Judge at para. 32 concerns the current situation in Bangladesh and so, at most, contradicts the Expert Report as to that current position in Bangladesh. In my judgment this provides a further reason for finding that the Judge’s reliance on the 20 December 2024 CPIN was not material to his core findings that UB, a low level supporter of the BNP/BJCP, was not targeted while in Bangladesh and would not be at risk on return.
46. In sum, and having considered the Judge’s determination in the round, I find that Ground 3 discloses no material error of law.
Conclusion
47. For the reasons set out above I dismiss UB’s appeal.
Post-Script
48. The Appellant’s Grounds for Seeking Permission to Appeal of 8 January 2023 contained references to a number of authorities that did not exist and references to authorities that did exist, but did not stand as authority for the propositions of law cited. I note that these Grounds were not drafted by Counsel for the Appellant.
49. I invited Lawmatic Solicitors to provide an explanation for this and received a prompt email in reply. Given my serious concerns as to how the Grounds had been drafted, I had decided that a more formal response was required and I therefore directed Lawmatic Solicitor’s Compliance Officer for Legal Practice or, if that were not practicable, the Solicitor with conduct, to explain how these errors had been made and, in particular, whether the Grounds had been produced by or with the assistance of Artificial Intelligence.
50. I received a number of documents in reply, including a witness statement from Mr MD Salah Uddin, solicitor with conduct and partner dated 16 May 2025. Mr Salah Uddin explained that the Grounds had been drafted under his supervision by a non-practising barrister with experience of immigration litigation. He explained that the Grounds had been drafted with “… some assistance from an AI tool…” but the drafter, having noticed that Grounds contained “unknown or irrelevant cases … rectified [the Grounds] by removing [these cases] from the final version of the grounds…” The final version of the Grounds was then approved by Mr Salah Uddin. The drafter then “inadvertently uploaded the draft version [of the Grounds] rather than the final one”.
51. This is, plainly, unacceptable. It is imperative that the Tribunal is able to rely on the accuracy of parties’ pleadings and that Tribunal time is not wasted searching for cases that do not exist or seeking to identify propositions of law in authorities where no such propositions can be found. The draft Grounds were known to contain errors. It is concerning that the fact that the bundle contained erroneous Grounds was not noticed until raised by me in the course of the hearing.
52. However, I accept Mr Salah Uddin’s explanation that reliance on the draft Grounds was inadvertent. I also note that Lawmatic Solicitors recognised this seriousness of this issue and has taken commendable steps to ensure it will not be repeated including (i) meeting with the caseworker who drafted the Grounds; (ii) holding a partners’ meeting to discuss adopting an AI policy and assigning the task of finalising an AI policy to a colleague in consultation with an AI professional; (iii) conducting relevant in-house training and issuing interim AI Guidance and (iv) planning for comprehensive staff training by an AI professional. In light of Mr Salah Uddin’s explanation and the steps taken by Lawmatic Solicitors, I do not consider it to be necessary to take this matter any further.
53. For the avoidance of doubt, my concerns about the drafting and accuracy of the Grounds has played no part in my consideration of the merits of this appeal.
Notice of Decision
54. The appeal is dismissed.

Andrew Deakin

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber