Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-001506

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/52968/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

31st October 2025

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GIBBS

Between

MA
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms. Turnbull, Counsel instructed by the Stuart and Co Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr. Nappey, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 15 October 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, and any family member 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. This is an appeal brought by appellant against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge McMahon (the Judge) to refuse the appellant’s appeal against a decision made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to refuse his protection and human rights appeal.

Background
2. The appellant is an ethnic Kurd, Alevi Muslim and citizen of Turkey. He claims to have suffered discrimination and persecution in Turkey because of his ethnicity and religion. He claimed asylum in the United Kingdom on 5 January 2023. Also an earthquake in 2023 had left his family homeless. The respondent refused the appellant’s claim based on his credibility.
3. The Judge refused the appeal on the basis that the appellant had failed to provide evidence that the treatment that he fears on return to Turkey meets the definition of persecution. Further, the Judge was not satisfied that the appellant’s removal would be in breach of his rights under Article 8 ECHR.

Grounds of Appeal
4. The Grounds of Appeal are twofold.
5. Ground 1 asserts that the Judge’s decision to refuse to grant Ms. Turnbull’s application for an adjournment at hearing deprived the appellant of a fair hearing;
6. Ground 2 is that the Judge provided inadequate reasons for material findings.

Grant of Permission
7. Upper Tribunal Judge Hirst granted permission to appeal in a decision dated 29 April 2025. She found Ground 1 to be the stronger of the two grounds but did not limit the grant of permission.
8. Following the grant of permission the respondent filed a rule 24 response to the appeal.
9. At the error of law hearing, I heard oral submissions from both parties. I address any submissions of significance in the discussion section below

Application under rule 15(2A) The Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008
10. In accordance with the Procedure Rules the appellant’s legal representatives made a written application (dated 30 May 2025) for evidence that was not before the First-tier Tribunal to be considered. This is in the form of a letter from the appellant’s GP dated 28 May 2025 and a GP printout covering 14 November 2024 – 3 June 2025. The reason that the evidence had not previously been provided is that the appellant had not disclosed any mental health problems to his legal representatives until 3 January 2025. Mr. Nappey opposed this application on the basis that the test in Ladd v Marshall [1954] EWCA Civ 1 is not met.
11. I made the decision to admit the evidence. I accept that the reason that the evidence was not submitted before the Fust-tier Tribunal is because the appellant had not disclosed any mental health problems prior to the substantive appeal hearing and consequently, although the evidence existed, the appellant’s legal representatives would not have known to look for it. Further, I am satisfied that it is credible evidence that could have had an influence on the decision.

Discussion
Refusal of the Adjournment Application
12. The application for an adjournment was made by Ms. Turnbull at the start of the original hearing for two reasons; (i) the appellant had included an incorrect document in the bundle of evidence (a letter that concerned a different individual) and (ii) because the appellant had just provided Ms. Turnbull with three documents which related to his mental health – (i) a referral letter for high intensity CBT from November 2023, (ii) a letter dated 24 November 2024 confirming the appellant’s attendance at three CBT appointments to manage and reduce his “…PTSD symptoms which developed as a result of racism and physical abuse you experienced in your home country and your journey to the UK.” (iii) one page GP summary. Consequently Ms. Turnbull submitted that an updated appellant’s witness statement was required, and she had not had an opportunity to explore issues regarding the appellant’s vulnerability.
13. The Judge refused the application. He queried why the evidence had been raised so late. He concluded that late admission of the evidence would remedy any potential unfairness in refusing the adjournment application. Time was given to the representatives and following an application by Ms. Turnbull the Judge directed that the appellant be treated as a vulnerable witness in accordance with the Presidential Guidance Note (no.2) of 2010.
14. Ms. Turnbull’s position is that the refusal of the adjournment application deprived the appellant of the opportunity to obtain evidence about how his mental health conditions impacted him; specifically with regards to his ability to recall and recount events in Turkey. Ms. Turnbull submitted that because the appellant’s credibility was in issue this would have been important evidence without which the hearing was not fair. Further, that the Tribunal was not a suitable environment to enable her to take full instructions on these issues on the day of the hearing. Mr. Nappey, relying on the rule 24 response, submitted that the Judge had clearly taken into account the appellant’s mental health, making a direction that he be treated as a vulnerable witness and that there had been no unfairness.
15. In paragraph [10] of the Judge’s decision he reminds himself of Nwaigwe (adjournment fairness) [2014] UKUT 00481 (IAC) and Maleci (non-admission of late evidence) [2024] UKUT 00028. I find that his decision to admit the late medical evidence shows that he was aware of the importance of the appellant’s mental health conditions being taken into account at the hearing to ensure fairness. This is further reflected in his decision to make a vulnerable witness direction.
16. However he was not persuaded that it was necessary to adjourn to possibly obtain further evidence to ensure a fair hearing. In reaching this decision the Judge, quite properly I find, took into account the timing of the disclosure of the evidence; despite first seeing his GP for “social isolation” issues in August 2023, having a single major depressive episode in February 2024, and in December 2024 being prescribed anti-depressant medication the appellant failed to mention any mental health problems in either his substantive asylum interview in January 2024, or to his legal representatives, and first produced evidence at the appeal, hearing despite the evidence reflecting attendance at CBT therapy since October 2024.
17. I find that in making the decision to admit the late medical evidence, but refusing an application to adjourn is evidence of the Judge properly engaging in the balancing exercise of the need for efficiency and expedition and the appellant’s right to a fair hearing.
18. There is no criticism by Ms. Turnbull of the conduct of the hearing. The Judge made a vulnerable witness direction and therefore all parties were aware of the appellant’s mental health conditions and treated him accordingly.
19. Further I find that the decision clearly reflects that the judge took into account the impact of this direction and the medical evidence when deciding the appeal:
“24. This was in my judgement, a significant deficiency in the Appellant’s account. Failing to provide any meaningful evidence about the Appellant’s personal account undermines his claim that he has a well-founded fear of persecution or serious harm. However, in assessing this deficiency, I bear in mind, as Ms. Turnbull invited me to do in her closing submissions, that the Appellant is not only a vulnerable witness but further, that for someone who has faced discrimination every day of their lives, notable events of discrimination or persecution essentially blend into the ordinary and it may be difficult to recollect specific examples. These are important points, and I take them into account when assessing this issue.
25. Having done so, I am also prepared to accept the points made by Ms. Turnbull provide some explanation about the Appellant’s inability to provide that level or personal evidence in his oral evidence. But, even after having regard to these factors, the Appellant has not provided any satisfactory explanation why he did not elaborate on other incidents or examples of discrimination in his written evidence, which he would have had the opportunity to prepare over a period of time.”
20. This is not a case where the Judge rejected the appellant’s credibility because of inconsistencies and further medical evidence about his mental health conditions could have addressed these. The Judge found the appellant to be a credible witness but refused the appeal because he found that the appellant’s account of events was insufficient to establish that he had suffered persecution. The Judge accepted that the appellant had been bullied at school and attacked by a far right gang. He accepted that there is country background evidence showing discrimination faced by Kurds and Alevi Muslims in Turkey, which he accepted that the appellant had experienced ([33]) but concluded that this did not amount to persecution.
21. Ms. Turnbull submits that the appellant’s inability to provide further examples of discrimination / persecution that he suffered in Turkey is attributable to his mental health conditions and that had the judge adjourned the hearing further evidence could have explained this which is why the hearing was unfair. I am not persuaded by her submission. I find that the appellant did not fail because he forgot dates, names or locations, his appeal failed because he could not provide evidence of events that the Judge found amounted to persecution. I am not persuaded that in this case an adjournment and further medical evidence would have made the hearing fairer. The new medical evidence does no more than highlight the appellant’s presented symptoms to his GP who, as is acknowledged is not a mental health expert. The letter does not, I find state that the appellant is unfit to give evidence or has memory problems. Whilst it is recorded that his ability to articulate clearly his personal history may be impaired it does not suggest that he will be unable to recall events in their entirety.
22. I am therefore satisfied that the Judge’s decision to refuse the adjournment did not lead to unfairness and was not procedurally unfair.
Inadequate Reasons
23. The grant of permission finds that “The determination, read as a whole, is detailed and well-reasoned, and the judge gave balanced consideration to the evidence which was before him.” Permission was not however limited.
24. In the grounds Ms. Turnbull acknowledges that there is a link between the first and second grounds. Further, it is asserted that the Judge failed to provide adequate for concluding that the authorities are able to provide assistance ([27]). However, this paragraph must be read in light of the Judge’s conclusions that the appellant had not experienced persecution which is consistent with the respondent’s CPIN (before the Judge) at paragraph 4.1.3..
25. I am not therefore persuaded that, read as a whole, the decision discloses a lack of reasoning that amounts to a material error of law.

Notice of Decision
26. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal does not involve the making of an error on a point of law. The appellant’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.

L K Gibbs
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
20 October 2025