Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-001124

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/61932/2023
LP/02787/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 21 July 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE NORTON-TAYLOR
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE COTTON

Between
AA
(anonymity order made)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE
FOR THE HOME OFFICE
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr S Hingora, counsel instructed by Lei Dat & Baig
For the Respondent: Ms E Blackburn, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 27 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. The appellant appeals against the decision of Judge Shelton (the Judge) of the First-tier Tribunal (FtT) dated 14 January 2025 which dismissed the appeal against the decision of the respondent dated 16 November 2023. The respondent had refused the appellant’s application dated 11 October 2024 for protection. The appellant sought asylum, or alternatively humanitarian protection, on the basis that he would be at risk on return to Somalia due to his clan membership.
Background and FtT analysis
2. The background relevant to the appeal before us can be summarised as follows. The appellant claims he fears persecution from Al Shabab. He states that Al Shabab had been extorting money from his father. When his father was unable to pay, they shot the appellant’s father, hit the appellant and kidnapped him. He was detained by them and beaten, suffering an injury to his eye. The appellant took an opportunity to escape and fled Somalia.
3. Whilst the Judge found the appellant credible in some respects, the Judge found against the appellant on the basis that the appellant’s claim to have been kidnapped lacked detail, the appellant did not expand on his claim to have been kidnapped to the satisfaction of the Judge in live evidence, and the appellant’s account of escape, evasion of re-capture and journey across Europe lacked detail or any form of support. The Judge concluded that the appellant had not proved there was a convention reason, or that there was an arguable reason to suggest that the appellant’s rights under arts 2 and 3 ECHR would be engaged.
Grounds and grant of permission, Rule 24 response
4. The appellant sought permission to appeal on a ground that was characterised at the permission stage as having two points. Firstly, that the Judge arguably failed to give adequate consideration of all the evidence when assessing the appellant’s credibility because the Judge failed to note the detail given by the appellant in his Asylum Interview Record (AIR). Secondly, that the Judge arguably omitted to give clear reasons why they reached their findings on credibility in relation to the kidnap (the judge accepted the appellant’s credibility in other aspects of the evidence). Permission was granted on the second of those points.
5. No rule 24 response was submitted by the respondent.
In the Upper Tribunal
6. We considered as a preliminary point the link between the first and second points addressed in the permission to appeal decision. We reminded ourselves of the guidance in Rai and DAM (Grounds of Appeal – Limited Grant of Permission) [2025] UKUT 00150 (IAC), in particular the guidance captured in [7] of the judicial headnote:
Unless a ground of appeal upon which permission is refused relates to a discrete aspect of the appeal, the Upper Tribunal, on appeal, should not be constrained from holistically considering critical issues capable of affecting the outcome of the appeal by limiting the grounds on which permission is granted.
7. We canvassed with the parties the link between the two points in the appeal admissibility decision and the parties agreed that there was an inherent link between the two and that it would be sensible and logical that we consider both points holistically.
8. Neither party was in a position to assist us with any detail of proceedings in the FtT from an advocate’s note. Neither party had sought a transcript or recording of the FtT hearing. We heard submissions from the appellant and respondent and reserved our decision.
Analysis and decision – Error of Law
9. The appellant’s core submission centred around the Judge’s treatment of the appellant’s account of his kidnap and escape. In the FtT determination this appears at [19] to [21]. The Judge finds that there was a lack of detail in the appellant’s account of his kidnap but, submits the appellant, the appellant gave a detailed account in q84-92 of the AIR. The appellant submits that the Judge’s decision is undermined by a lack of engagement with the evidence, which indicates that the Judge has not taken this evidence into account, or that the Judge had expected the appellant to repeat his written evidence in oral evidence, thereby failing to give sufficient consideration to the written evidence. The appellant submits that he had dealt with the matter in interview, and so the Judge errs by ignoring this when the Judge concludes at [19] that the appellant did not give detail in oral evidence on this point to the Judge’s satisfaction.
10. The respondent submitted that the Judge could have expanded on the reasons in the determination, but was entitled to place adverse weight on what was said (or not) in evidence at the hearing. The Judge did not only take issue with the lack of detail in the appellant’s account, but also makes reference to the appellant’s evidence on his route to the UK making adverse findings in relation to this. The Judge also considered that the CPIN in evidence weighs against the appellant’s version of events. The Judge, says the respondent, sees a cumulation of matters that weigh against the appellant.
11. The appellant further submits that the judge errs in the assessment of the appellant’s credibility at [12]-[16] because despite accepting significant core elements of the appellant’s claim, the judge found no convention reason. The appellant submits that the judge accepted the appellant’s claim that his father had been killed, the reasons for the injury to the appellant’s eye, and that he was forcibly taken into custody.
12. We remind ourselves of the need to show appropriate deference to the FtT, which is a specialist tribunal well experienced in making decisions of the type under appeal to us.
13. We deal first with the submission that the judge erred in the assessment of the appellant’s credibility. Reading the FtT determination it seems to us that the Judge at [12] does not make a finding that the appellant’s account of how he obtained that injury to be credible, rather the Judge finds the appellant’s explanation for the mistake about the date of the injury to his eye to be credible. The Judge finds that the account of the threats against the appellant and the death of the appellant’s father is credible, but not the account that the appellant was kidnapped. We therefore are not persuaded by the appellant’s submissions in regard of [12]-[16] of the determination.
14. We turn to the Judge’s treatment of the appellant’s evidence on his kidnap and escape. It is unclear to us whether the Judge is referring to oral or written evidence when the Judge states there was a lack of detail in the appellant’s account of his kidnap and escape. We agree that the Judge’s finding of a lack of detail appears to be at odds with the answers the appellant gave in his AIR, which do provide detail of his kidnap and subsequent treatment. The appellant’s evidence in his AIR describes that he was taken to a training camp, held in a room with other men and woken every morning to be trained. He describes how he was hit with a belt because he overslept, leading to his eye injury. He describes how many people kidnapped him, that there were more at the training camp he was taken to, and he names where the training camp is. He explains how he was put to work in the camp, and how this gave rise to the chance to escape with another person. The appellant describes the route of his escape and how he got a lift from a person transporting milk in a pick up truck.
15. On the face of it there is detail in the appellant’s account and the Judge does not explain why his account in AIR lacks detail. We find that the Judge has omitted to take this evidence into account when assessing the evidence on the appellant’s kidnap in the determination. Alternatively, if that evidence was taken into account and rejected, the Judge failed to provide legally adequate reasons for so doing. We are not persuaded by the respondent’s submission that the judge’s use of other evidence in the case remedies this. We find that the judge fell into error.
16. We find that this error is material because the appellant’s account in interview of his kidnap and escape goes to the heart of his persecution narrative (as the appellant described it in submissions). Had the Judge accepted the evidence it could have had an impact, to the appellant’s benefit, on the Judge’s analysis of the appellant’s credibility and convention reason.
17. Both parties submitted that the matter should be remitted to the FtT if we find a material error. Whilst the normal approach is that an appeal is remade in the Upper Tribunal, we judge that the nature and extent of fact finding necessary, including assessing the appellant’s credibility, is such that, having regard to the overriding objective, it is appropriate to remit the case to the FtT. No findings made by the Judge are to be preserved.
Notice of Decision
The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did involve the making of an error on a point of law.
The determination of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside.
The case is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal (Manchester hearing centre) for remaking.

D Cotton

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

14 July 2025