Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-001482

First-tier Tribunal Nos: PA/60242/2024
LP/06094/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 20 August 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE OWENS
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KIRK

Between

UA
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Sowerby, Counsel represented by Maxwell Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr Ojo, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 28 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
1. The appellant appeals with permission against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 14 January 2025 dismissing his protection and human rights appeal against a decision by the Secretary of State dated 2 April 2024 refusing both claims.
Background and appellant’s claim
2. The appellant is a national of Pakistan. He claims that he entered into a clandestine relationship with a female student at his college. In April 2022 he asked for permission from his father to marry her. His family refused because his proposed fiancée was from a different caste. He attempted suicide. He claims that after the family found out about the relationship, he was threatened and attacked and his “cousin brother” was killed in May 2022. He applied for a student visa and entered the United Kingdom (“UK”) as a student on 2 August 2022. His proposed fiancée applied separately for a student visa and entered the UK as a student shortly after in September 2022. The appellant studied for a week before ceasing his studies. It is not clear whether the appellant’s proposed fiancée commenced her studies in the UK.
3. The couple were married in a religious ceremony at Middlesborough mosque on 1 October 2022. Shortly after the marriage, the appellant’s wife became pregnant. The appellant and his wife informed their respective families about the marriage and pregnancy. Both families were unhappy and threatened them. The appellant claimed asylum on 2 November 2022. His wife is dependent on his claim.
4. The appellant asserts that if he and his wife return to Pakistan, they will be killed by their families because of the dishonour they have brought on them. He says that his father is very religious and that his uncle is a powerful man in the local area who is a member of the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) PML-N and who has criminal connections. He asserts that his uncle is angry with him because the marriage has damaged him politically. He asserts that he and his wife would be at risk throughout Pakistan because of his uncle’s powerful connections and because he can be traced by his SIM card.
5. The appellant’s wife miscarried her first child but the couple subsequently had a daughter who was born on 21 January 2024. The appellant further asserts that he cannot register his child with the Pakistani authorities in the UK because the marriage is not lawful. His claims that his child is illegitimate and will suffer discrimination in Pakistan on that basis.
Respondent’s case
6. The respondent refused the appellant’s application on the basis that his claim was lacking in credibility. There were various inconsistencies in the account and a lack of evidence that the appellant had been threatened by his family. Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004 also applied due to the timing of the claim and because the appellant had used deception to enter the UK. The respondent asserts that sufficiency of protection and internal relocation are available in Pakistan. Having received the appellant’s bundle and the supporting documents, the respondent prepared a detailed review which raised various new issues in respect of credibility.
The Judge’s Decision
7. The judge found the appellant’s claim not to be credible. The judge did not accept that the appellant and his wife had been threatened by their families nor that there was an outstanding warrant for the appellant’s arrest.
8. At [96], the judge found in the alternative that even were the claim to be credible, it would be open to the appellant and his family to relocate safely to another part of Pakistan. The judge rejected the appellant’s account that he could be traced anywhere in Pakistan from his SIM card. The judge did not accept that the appellant’s child is illegitimate. The judge found that the appellant was not at risk of serious harm if returned to Pakistan.
Grounds of appeal
9. The grounds are lengthy and loosely drafted. Importantly, we note here that the grounds do not challenge the judge’s negative credibility findings.
Ground 1 – The judge failed to make a central finding of fact
10. The judge failed to make a factual finding that the appellant started a physical relationship with his wife in Pakistan.
Ground 2- The judge failed to consider the claim at its highest
11. The judge failed to take the claim at its highest. The judge failed to take into account that the appellant entered into a physical relationship before the Nikah, the marriage is unlawful, his daughter is illegitimate, his uncle is politically active and influential, and an First Information Report (“FIR”) has been registered against him. This affected the judge’s assessment of risk, sufficiency of protection, internal relocation and the best interests of the child.
Permission
12. Permission was granted by a Judge of the First-tier Tribunal on 1 April 2025 on the basis that the grounds were arguable. The judge did not give any detailed reasons for the grant of permission.
Response
13. The respondent provided a Rule 24 response opposing the appeal.
14. Both representatives made submissions which are recorded in the Record of Proceedings.
Discussion
Ground 1
15. The grounds assert that the judge failed to make a central finding of fact in respect of whether the appellant and his now wife had an intimate relationship in Pakistan before they were married. We do not agree. The judge set out the history and details of the appellant’s claim in detail from [14] to [35] noting at [14] that the appellant had been conducting a discreet relationship with his now wife in Pakistan over a period of four years. There is no dispute over whether the appellant is in a genuine and existing relationship with his wife and it was not part of the respondent’s case that the relationship did not start in Pakistan. It is the respondent’s case that the appellant has not been truthful about the threats he received, nor about being attacked and that he would not be at risk if he returned to Pakistan because he and his wife are able to relocate safely within Pakistan or seek protection from the authorities. It can be clearly inferred from the decision that the judge accepted that the relationship started in Pakistan. The judge was manifestly aware of the background evidence and that honour killings do take place in Pakistan. He noted Mr Sowerby’s submissions on the CPIN at [72] in relation to this.
16. Ground 1 is not made out.
Ground 2
17. We note that ground 2 is rather oddly worded. It is asserted that at [96] the judge “failed to take the case at its highest”.
18. The judge’s task was to consider the “sea of evidence”, make appropriate findings and evaluate the risk to the appellant and his family in the light of that evidence and the background material. The criticism is aimed at two paragraphs at [96] and [97] where the judge considered the case on the alternative basis that the appellant was telling the truth that he and his wife had been threatened in their home area. The judge found that regardless of the threats sufficiency of protection was available at [96] and at [97] that the couple would not be at risk because they could relocate safely elsewhere in Pakistan.
19. It was agreed by both parties that a central issue in the appeal related to the appellant’s credibility in respect of being attacked and threatened by both his own family and his wife’s family. This was acknowledged by the judge at [5].
20. In his initial asylum interview the appellant asserted that he asked his father if he could be permitted to marry his now wife in about March/April or May 2022 and his father slapped him and said, “it will never happen” (Q66). He said that he received text messages from his wife’s family telling him to leave their daughter alone when he was in Pakistan (Q68). He then attempted suicide but realised that his family would not change their mind. He then told his family that he was not going to marry his wife and there were no further threats in Pakistan before he left to come to the UK in August 2022.
21. After the refusal of his asylum claim, in his witness statement prepared for the appeal, the appellant claimed that he was violently attacked in Pakistan on 22 May 2022 by family members and that during the attack his “cousin brother” was killed. He also claimed that a criminal case had been registered against him. In support of this he provided photographs of a dead body, his “cousin brother’s” identity card, and an arrest warrant. He also supplied photos of scars on his arm and other photos said to relate to his uncle. The respondent’s review dealt with this new evidence in detail. The review highlighted the appellant’s failure to mention the serious attack on 22 May 2022 in his initial asylum interview, and questioned the plausibility of the appellant’s assertion that he did not want to mention it because it might damage his asylum claim. The review pointed to the fact that the photos of the dead man were not probative of the appellant’s “cousin brother” being murdered. The man’s body was noticeably older than the age of the purported “cousin brother”. There was no scarring report to support the claim that he had self-harmed. There was no explanation as to how the appellant had obtained the FIR document which had not been translated in the UK and was therefore unreliable. There were inconsistences in relation to the documents relating to the appellant’s uncle.
22. The respondent did not accept that the appellant’s marriage was not valid because the appellant did not provide any supporting background evidence in respect of the validity of the marriage.
23. The judge heard the appellant’s oral evidence, had sight of his witness statement and took into account all of the documents in the appeal. The judge noted that the appellant’s oral evidence contained further inconsistencies and took into account that his wife did not attend the appeal hearing to give evidence.
24. The judge made the following findings in respect of credibility:
78. The appellant has given evidence of the problems which he faced in Pakistan, having advised his father of the relationship. There is a discrepancy in the appellant’s evidence as to when this information was provided to his father. In his asylum interview, he advised that this information was provided in March or April 2022, in evidence to the Tribunal stating that this was in fact in January 2022. I do not accept the explanation given by the appellant as to the reason for this discrepancy, namely that he was under pressure and feeling stressed.
79. If the appellant’s evidence is to be believed, the problems which the appellant experienced in Pakistan started when he disclosed this information to his father. I consider it reasonable to assess that the appellant would have been able to give very clear evidence of when the problems started.
80. The appellant has also given evidence that in particular, he experienced difficulties due to the influential position of his uncle who is a politician. Whilst the appellant has provided some documentation to show the identity of his uncle, the documentation which he has provided has discrepancies in the date of birth of the individual and whilst he has given evidence of the influence of his uncle, there has been no supporting evidence provided in respect of this statement.
…..
82. If the appellant’s evidence is to be accepted, it seems clear that the reason for coming to the UK was to enable the appellant and his partner to have their life together in the UK. Accordingly, again if the appellant’s evidence is to be accepted the reason why the appellant is now claiming asylum predated his move to the UK and accordingly, I do not consider that there is a reasonable explanation as to why the appellant would not have claimed asylum on arrival in the UK on the basis of his evidence that he and his partner would be at risk if required to return to Pakistan.
83. I accordingly consider that the appellant’s failure to claim asylum at an earlier date is damaging to his credibility.
……
89. The appellant has given evidence of threats having been received from both his own family and his partner’s family. The only evidence presented to the Tribunal today, however, was the evidence of the appellant. The appellant’s partner did not attend to give evidence, there was no explanation of why the appellant’s partner was not present to give evidence.
90. The appellant has provided an FIR dated February 2022 which states that the appellant along with others (including a person with the same name as the appellant’s uncle) attacked members of his partner’s family at their home. The appellant’s evidence is that he was in fact attacked by members of his partner’s family. However, they managed to get the police case registered against the appellant for this incident. It is further noted that in the FIR, it is stated that the contention is a land dispute. I have taken into account the submission by Mr Waseem that little weight should be attached to this document given the lack of validation of the translation. Notwithstanding this, taking the information in this document at its highest, this document appears to relate to a land dispute and, I find it difficult to accept the evidence submitted by the appellant that this is a fabricated report following an assault on him by members of his partner’s family. Again, it is to be assumed that the appellant’s evidence on this could have been supported by his partner. However, no such evidence was provided.
91. The appellant has also provided evidence that the dispute with his partner’s family gave rise to his cousin brother losing his life, following an incident in May 2022. With some photographic evidence having been provided. Again, it is notable however that the appellant did not provide evidence of this at his asylum interview. His explanation being that he thought that this could impact badly on his claim for asylum and also that he was under severe trauma and stress due to this incident. The explanation given by the appellant for failing to provide this evidence and information at earlier date I did not consider was reasonable or plausible.
92. In respect of the appellant’s uncle. He has provided some photographs and articles, these I did not consider however were sufficiently persuasive to allow me to accept that the appellant’s uncle has the influence or reach which the appellant claims.
93. Overall, I found that the appellant’s claim to be at risk from his own family or from his partner’s family to be lacking in credibility.
94. I also do not accept the evidence given by the appellant of the influence of his uncle.
25. We have had regard to Latayan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWCA Civ 191. This is authority for the fact that an appellate Tribunal should be slow to interfere with findings of fact by a First-tier Tribunal judge.
26. We remind ourselves of the limited circumstances in which an appellate Tribunal may interfere with findings of fact and credibility by the First-tier Judge, who saw and heard an appellant give his evidence. In Volpi & Anor v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464; [2022] 4 W.L.R. 48 Lewison LJ, with whom Males and Snowden LJJ agreed, explained interference with findings of fact and credibility is appropriate only where such a finding is ‘plainly wrong’ or ‘rationally insupportable’ at [2]-[5].
27. In this appeal the grounds do not assert that judge erred in his credibility findings.
28. We are therefore satisfied that the negative credibility findings are entirely sustainable and adequately reasoned. They are firmly grounded in the inconsistent and poor quality evidence before the judge. The judge was manifestly entitled to make the criticisms he did. The judge has made a clear finding that the appellant has not demonstrated to the lower standard that he has been threatened or attacked by either his own family or his wife’s family, nor that his uncle is powerful and well connected, and he is therefore not at risk from them if he returns to Pakistan.
29. The judge also did not accept that the appellant’s marriage to his wife was invalid and that their child would be considered illegitimate. This was on the basis that the appellant had not provided any expert or other supporting evidence for why this would be the case. There was insufficient evidence that the appellant’s child would be viewed as illegitimate. This finding is also unchallenged and is sustainable.
30. These unchallenged and sustainable findings are determinative of the protection claim and in the absence of any challenge to the credibility findings it is manifestly immaterial if the judge erred at [96] by failing to “take the case at its highest”. Ground 2 is misconceived.
31. In any event, the judge’s findings that there would be sufficiency of protection and that the couple could relocate internally are based on the CPINs on “actors of persecution” and “internal relocation” and are sustainable. A judge does not need to set out the evidence relied on in detail.
Conclusion
32. It follows that none of the appellant’s grounds of appeal are made out and the appeal is dismissed.
Notice of Decision
33. The decision of First-tier Tribunal dismissing the appellant’s asylum and human rights appeal dated 14 January 2025 stands.

R J Owens

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

1 August 2025