Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-001476

First-tier Tribunal Nos: PA/62149/2023
LP/04902/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
6th June 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LOUGHRAN
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ZUCKER

Between

MKI
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr A Arafin of Counsel, instructed by Legit Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr E Tufan, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 29 May 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the Appellant and any member of his family 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 with permission against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Buckwell promulgated on 23rd November 2024 dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Respondent not to grant him international protection in the United Kingdom.
Background
2. The Appellant is a national of Bangladesh who arrived in the United Kingdom on 28th February 2022 using his own passport, with the benefit of the student visa. On 23rd March 2022 he made application for international protection on the basis he would be at risk on return to Bangladesh due to his allegiance to the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (“the BNP”) which had been in opposition to the previous government of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and her Awami League government.
3. On 15th November 2023 a decision was made to refuse the application. The Appellant appealed. On 13th November 2024 the appeal was heard by Judge Buckwell sitting at Hatton Cross. The appeal was dismissed on all grounds.
4. Not content with that decision, the application accompanied by grounds dated 4th December 2024 the Appellant made application for permission to appeal to this, the Upper Tribunal.
5. In essence the grounds were that the judge:
(i) erred in assessing the Appellant’s level of involvement in and with the BNP;
(ii) failed to consider the party letters, medical documents and pictures of UK political activities;
(iii) failed to consider the Appellant’s activity in Facebook and the risk of surveillance; and
(iv) made irrational findings on credibility.
The grounds are more fully set out in the application and so it is not necessary for us to repeat them here.
6. In granting permission First-tier Tribunal Judge Tozzi stated:
“At paragraph 42 of the decision, the FtJ found there was not a specific attack by the Awami League but went on to find this did not detract from the overall contentions made by the Appellant with respect to the Awami League. At paragraph 44, the FtJ accepted the Appellant was a supporter of the BNP. The FtJ arguably failed to make findings as to the Appellant’s actual level of involvement with the BNP when assessing risk.
The FtJ set out the submissions about party letters, dental treatment and Facebook posts but appeared to make no findings about the reliability of or weight to be attached to this potentially relevant evidence when assessing the claim in the round.
Arguably the FtJ failed to make an assessment of credibility in the round, focusing at paragraph 43 on the late claim for asylum only.
I consider that these matters arguably amount to errors of law.”
The Hearing in the Upper Tribunal
7. We gave an indication to the parties at the outset of our preliminary view of this appeal but at the same time made it clear that we would hear submissions on any point that the parties wanted to make.
8. We noted with respect to the first ground that at paragraph 48 of his decision, Judge Buckwell stated after saying that the Appellant had not discharged the burden of showing that his fear of returning to Bangladesh based on support for the BNP would result in persecution, that it was relevant, “to take into account that based on the evidence of the Appellant he has not established that he had other than a low-level profile in Bangladesh, despite his having been attacked on one occasion.”
9. It appears therefore that Judge Buckwell did make a finding about the level of the Appellant’s activity. The difficulty however is that findings are made against the background of Judge Buckwell not appearing to have given sufficient consideration to relevant evidence that was placed before him. We appreciate that the judge states at the outset that he has considered all of the evidence taken into account whether or not it is referred to but we find that he fell into error of law when, as Judge Tozzi pointed out, it is not clear what weight was attached to the party letters, dental treatment and Facebook posts. Further it appears that whilst, of course, the judge was right to look to the lateness of the claim, and the amount of weight given to a particular aspect of a claim is for the judge, there is a point when it appears that too much weight is given to one aspect of the claim against the background of other evidence being available without sufficient reference to it. In other words, the decision became, we considered, out of balance.
Error of law
10. We are grateful to both parties for the realistic approach that they took to this case. Mr Tufan for the Secretary of State whilst not conceding the appeal understood why we took the preliminary view that we did, and he did not seek to argue the Respondent’s case further. In those circumstances we need say no more than other than that we find a material error of law for the reasons indicated above such that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal should be set aside.
Remaking?
11. The question then is whether or not we should remake the case here or remit it. We are aware that this Tribunal will be considering later in the year the background material with respect to the changed situation which now appertains in Bangladesh and that there is likely to be country guidance. In the circumstances it is right, we think, to remit this case to the First-tier Tribunal so that the Appellant has a chance to argue his case against the background of the situation as will be found by this Tribunal.
Notice of Decision
12. There was a material error of law in the decision of the First-tier Tribunal such that the decision is set aside. The matter will be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be remade with no preserved findings of fact.

D G Zucker

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

2 June 2025