Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-001850
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/52397/2024
LP/12828/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision and Reasons Issued:
6th August 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE JACKSON
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MALIK KC

Between

BZ
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION made)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE
FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation

For the Appellant: Mr S Muzenda, Solicitor, Longfellow and Co Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms J Isherwood, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 23 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 them or any member of their family. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
Introduction
1. This is an appeal brought by the Appellant against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Sangha (“the Judge”), promulgated on 12 March 2025. By that decision, the Judge dismissed the Appellant’s appeal against the Secretary of State’s refusal of his protection and human rights claims.
Factual background
2. The Appellant is a citizen of Zimbabwe, born in 1969.
3. The Appellant claimed to have arrived in the United Kingdom in 2001 and to have made an asylum claim in 2002. However, the Secretary of State reviewed both electronic and paper records and found no evidence of such a claim. The first recorded application is one made in 2016.
4. The Appellant made a protection claim on 25 October 2022. His screening interview was conducted on 1 November 2022 and his substantive asylum interview took place on 4 January 2024. In short, he claimed that he would be at risk of persecution by the government of Zimbabwe on account of his political opinion. He alleged that he had been involved in the politics of the Movement for Democratic Change (“MDC”) in Zimbabwe. The Secretary of State rejected his account and refused both his protection claim and the associated human rights claim on 22 January 2024.
5. The Judge heard the Appellant’s appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision on 4 March 2025. As recorded at [6], the parties agreed that the issues in dispute were (a) whether the Appellant would attract adverse attention from the government of Zimbabwe on account of his political activities, and (b) whether his credibility was undermined by the delay in making the asylum claim. The Appellant, who was legally represented, gave oral evidence and was cross-examined. He called a further witness, whom we shall refer to as Mr PM, in support of his appeal.
6. The Judge rejected the Appellant’s account and found that he would not be at risk of persecution in Zimbabwe. Accordingly, the Judge dismissed the appeal on all grounds by a decision promulgated on 12 March 2025.
7. Permission to appeal against the Judge’s decision was granted on 24 April 2025 on limited grounds. However, the reasons for the grant of permission do not specifically match the pleaded grounds of appeal. In the circumstances, we proceeded to consider all of the Appellant’s grounds of appeal in the round.
Grounds of appeal
8. The pleaded grounds of appeal advance several connected arguments. In short, it is contended that the Judge erred in (a) failing to adequately engage with the Appellant’s claim, including by finding it vague, (b) holding that the Appellant had provided no evidence of his activism in the United Kingdom, (c) failing to make clear and explicit findings on relevant matters, (d) concluding that the authorities would have no interest in him, (e) giving undue weight to minor inconsistencies, (f) failing to properly apply the country guidance, and (g) erring in the risk assessment process.
Submissions
9. We heard oral submissions from Mr Muzenda, who appeared for the Appellant, and Ms Isherwood, who appeared for the Secretary of State.
10. Mr Muzenda made submissions in accordance with the pleaded grounds of appeal. He invited us to uphold those grounds and to set aside the Judge’s decision on the basis that it was wrong in law. The Appellant had made an application to adduce further evidence pursuant to Rule 15 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008. Mr Muzenda accepted that the fresh evidence was not relevant to the issue of whether the Judge had erred on a point of law in dismissing the Appellant’s appeal. He made it clear that the fresh evidence was being adduced for the purpose of re-making the decision in the event that an error of law is found in the Judge’s decision.
11. Ms Isherwood resisted the appeal and submitted that the Judge had made no error of law in dismissing the Appellant’s appeal. She contended that the Judge’s findings were open to him and that the appeal was founded upon matters not raised by the Appellant below. She invited us to uphold the Judge’s decision and to dismiss the appeal.
Findings and reasons
12. The Judge, at [6], identified the two agreed issues. He properly acknowledged that the key issue of fact was whether the Appellant would attract adverse attention from the government of Zimbabwe on account of his political activities. At [7]-[8], he recorded hearing evidence from the Appellant and Mr PM, as well as closing submissions from both parties. Under the heading “Legal Framework”, at [9]-[10], he directed himself correctly as to the applicable law, including the burden and standard of proof. He then proceeded to make findings of fact.
13. The Judge commenced his findings of fact at [11], “having considered all the oral and documentary evidence” adduced by the parties. He observed that the Appellant’s evidence was inconsistent, lacking in detail, and vague. He recorded that the Appellant claimed to have arrived in the United Kingdom in 2001 and to have made an asylum claim in 2002, but had provided no supporting evidence. He noted that the Secretary of State had no record of such a claim. It was not suggested by Mr Muzenda before us that the Appellant had in fact made such a claim, or that the Judge’s finding was not open to him.
14. At [12], the Judge made the following findings in respect of the Appellant’s evidence:
“… The Appellant has not provided sufficient detail with regard to the aims of the party and his role within the MDC and when he asked what the aims and objectives of the party were, he simply stated ‘majority satisfaction’. When asked how many people distributed leaflets he said that he did not know the area covered and when asked what he did when attending rallies he stated ‘nothing much, sitting around singing and telling other people to sit down’. The Appellant claims that he became a youth leader but was unable to give the names of anyone who organised the rallies that he attended …”
15. In this context, it was entirely open to the Judge to find that the Appellant’s account was lacking in detail and vague. The Judge was entitled to conclude that this adversely affected the Appellant’s credibility.
16. The Judge next turned to the Appellant’s claim to have attended political demonstrations in the United Kingdom. At [13], the Judge made the following findings:
“The Appellant also states that he had attended rallies and demonstrations at the Zimbabwean Embassy in the UK but that activity has died down now due to Covid. When asked how he heard about the demonstrations or who attended the demonstrations the Appellant said that he did not know and had just heard from others and passers-by. I find that this is lacking in sufficient detail and the Appellant has not provided evidence to substantiate his political activity in the UK.”
17. Mr Muzenda, relying on the grounds of appeal, submitted that the Appellant had provided evidence of online participation in opposition meetings, photographs taken at public forums, and had called Mr PM to give evidence. However, the final sentence of the paragraphs quoted above must be read in context. The Judge was addressing the specific claim to have attended rallies and demonstrations. He was not considering other activity at that point in the decision. He was entitled to find that the Appellant’s account lacked detail. As the Judge recorded, when asked how he had heard about the demonstrations and who had attended them, the Appellant stated that he did not know and had simply heard from others and passers-by. The Judge’s finding was one that was open to him.
18. The Judge then considered the information provided by the Appellant in his screening interview and assessed it alongside the information given during his substantive asylum interview. At [14], the Judge made the following findings:
“I note that in his screening interview the Appellant stated that he had never been arrested or detained (SCR 5.3 and 5.4) which is inconsistent with his asylum interview where he claims that he was picked up by four people and taken to a police station where he was beaten and tortured (AIR questions 45 and 46) …”
19. The Judge was entitled to find that the Appellant’s evidence was inconsistent and to attach weight to that inconsistency in the overall credibility assessment.
20. The Judge, at [14], referred to external evidence and noted the following:
“… In any event given that the Appellant appears to have been a low level supporter of the MDC I find this is inconsistent with his claim that he was detained. External evidence shows that the risk associated with low level supporters/members of the MDC is very low and reported arrests/abductions pertaining to leaders and reported arrests/abductions are in relation to leaders and members with a significant profile. The Appellant has not provided any evidence amounting to leadership nor having a significant role.”
21. This is entirely consistent with the objective evidence cited in the Country Policy and Information Note: Zimbabwe – Opposition to Government (version 5.0, September 2021), which was referenced in the Secretary of State’s decision. Paragraph 2.4.18 provides that “the risk of being a victim of a violation based solely upon being a supporter or member of the MDC is very low”. It was open to the Judge to find that the Appellant did not occupy a leadership or otherwise significant role. The findings are clear and, as will appear below, consistent with the relevant country guidance.
22. At [15], the Judge considered the implications of the Appellant’s absence from the United Kingdom and found as follows:
“… I do not find it credible that the Zimbabwean State would be actively pursuing the Appellant for being a member of the MDC in view of the amount of time that has passed since he was out of the country. The Appellant claims to have left in 2001 via a direct flight without any adverse attention from the authorities. Nor is there any evidence from the Appellant that he or his family have come to the adverse attention of the Zimbabwean State since he left. The Appellant’s children continue to live in Zimbabwe and have lived there for the past 23 years without any incidents that the Appellant has brought to the Respondent’s attention. The Appellant has not provided any evidence that either he or his family have come to the adverse attention of the Zimbabwean State since he left.”
23. The Judge was entitled to make these findings and to attach weight to them in assessing whether the Appellant has a well-founded fear of persecution in Zimbabwe.
24. In making her findings, the Judge carefully evaluated both the documentary evidence adduced by the Appellant and the oral evidence. At [17], the Judge found as follows:
“… I also note that the Appellant’s evidence in cross-examination was vague with regard to when he joined the MDC in the UK and started taking part in their activities here. The Appellant said that he already had an MDC card back home and that he joined the CCC which came into being around 2020-2022. He claimed to have got involved in politics in the UK when he came here. However when asked which year he became actively involved in politics in the UK, he said it was 2019 …”
25. The Judge was entitled to take into account the fact that, on the one hand, the Appellant suggested that he came to the United Kingdom in 2001 and became involved in politics here, whilst on the other hand, he stated in cross-examination that he became actively involved in 2019.
26. The Judge, at [17], found that there were inconsistencies between the Appellant’s evidence and that of his witness:
“… I also note that there was inconsistencies in relation to the Appellant’s account between him and his witness, Mr [PM]. The Appellant said that he met Mr [PM] in Zimbabwe four times whereas Mr [PM] said it was four or five times. The Appellant said that Mr [PM] knew of his detention in Zimbabwe whereas Mr [PM] said that he was not aware of the Appellant having been detained in Zimbabwe. The Appellant said that Mr [PM] would have known about his detention in Zimbabwe automatically when he was arrested in November 2001 and taken to Harare Central Police Station. I also note that the Appellant’s evidence in relation to his detention is inconsistent with what he said in the screening interview at paragraphs 5.3 and 5.4 where he confirmed that he had not been arrested or detained in Zimbabwe. When asked to clarify the Appellant said that he thought that this question related to being arrested or detained in the UK. However I do not accept the Appellant’s evidence in relation to that because the question at 5.3 and 5.4 are clear that he was being asked whether he had been arrested or detained either in the UK or any other country. The Appellant was also questioned as to whether he had any documentation in relation to his political activities in the UK prior to the last three months and the Appellant simply said that he did not have any evidence because of Covid but said that he had been in the background. Mr [PM] gave evidence and confirmed that he had met the Appellant four or five times in Zimbabwe and on the issue of whether the Appellant has ever been detained his evidence was that not to his knowledge which is inconsistent with the Appellant’s own evidence.”
27. Mr Muzenda, relying on the grounds of appeal, submitted that the Judge gave “undue weight to minor inconsistencies”. This complaint does not disclose an error of law. There were clear inconsistencies in the evidence. It was for the Judge to determine the weight to be attached to those inconsistencies. The Judge did not err in law in finding that there were inconsistencies and attaching weight to them in rejecting the Appellant’s account. In any event, it is difficult to see how these inconsistencies can properly be characterised as “minor inconsistencies”.
28. In our judgment, the Judge was entitled to make his ultimate findings at [18]:
“I have come to the conclusion that the Appellant is not at real risk on return to Zimbabwe and I do not accept from all the evidence before me that the Appellant was politically active in Zimbabwe as he claims. I do not accept that he has any significant political profile that would bring him to the adverse interest of the Zimbabwean State. Consequently I am satisfied that the Appellant’s fear of persecution on return to Zimbabwe is not well-founded.”
29. The Judge, at [19], reiterated that he rejected the Appellant’s account of events. Accordingly, the issues of sufficiency of protection and internal relocation did not arise.
30. Insofar as the Appellant’s claimed activities in the United Kingdom were concerned, the Judge, at [20], found as follows:
“… I find that his role in any of these activities is not significant in any way. I find that the Appellant has not had any significant profile. The Appellant is not a leader and there is no evidence that he has come to the adverse attention of the Zimbabwean authorities in any event. The Appellant does not claim to be an organiser or mobiliser of any political protests. At most the Appellant has a very low profile and his activities are not such that he is a leader or organiser and is simply a person who has attended some demonstrations. I do not accept that the Appellant’s sur place activities in the UK would bring him to the adverse attention of the Zimbabwean authorities. There is no evidence that the Appellant has been identified as a person of any adverse interest by the Zimbabwean authorities. I find the fact that the Appellant decided to engage in sur place activities in the UK by attending demonstrations against the Zimbabwean State is simply a cynical attempt to bolster his asylum claim.”
31. Accordingly, having considered all the evidence, the Judge concluded that the Appellant’s decision to engage in activities in the United Kingdom was not genuine. It was, as the Judge put it, a cynical attempt to bolster his asylum claim. In any event, that attempt did not result in the Appellant attaining a significant MDC profile. It was open to the Judge to make these findings and to hold that there was no real risk to the Appellant in Zimbabwe.
32. In these circumstances, there is no merit in the Appellant’s contention that the Judge failed properly to apply the country guidance.
33. In CM (EM country guidance; disclosure) Zimbabwe CG [2013] UKUT 59 (IAC), insofar as relevant, the Upper Tribunal gave the following country guidance:
“(1) As a general matter, there is significantly less politically motivated violence in Zimbabwe, compared with the situation considered by the AIT in RN. In particular, the evidence does not show that, as a general matter, the return of a failed asylum seeker from the United Kingdom, having no significant MDC profile, would result in that person facing a real risk of having to demonstrate loyalty to the ZANU-PF.
(1) As a general matter, there is significantly less politically motivated violence in Zimbabwe, compared with the situation considered by the AIT in RN. In particular, the evidence does not show that, as a general matter, the return of a failed asylum seeker from the United Kingdom, having no significant MDC profile, would result in that person facing a real risk of having to demonstrate loyalty to the ZANU-PF.
(2) The position is, however, likely to be otherwise in the case of a person without ZANU-PF connections, returning from the United Kingdom after a significant absence to a rural area of Zimbabwe, other than Matabeleland North or Matabeleland South. Such a person may well find it difficult to avoid adverse attention, amounting to serious ill-treatment, from ZANU-PF authority figures and those they control. The adverse attention may well involve a requirement to demonstrate loyalty to ZANU-PF, with the prospect of serious harm in the event of failure. Persons who have shown themselves not to be favourably disposed to ZANU-PF are entitled to international protection, whether or not they could and would do whatever might be necessary to demonstrate such loyalty (RT (Zimbabwe)).
(3) The situation is not uniform across the relevant rural areas and there may be reasons why a particular individual, although at first sight appearing to fall within the category described in the preceding paragraph, in reality does not do so. For example, the evidence might disclose that, in the home village, ZANU-PF power structures or other means of coercion are weak or absent.
(4) In general, a returnee from the United Kingdom to rural Matabeleland North or Matabeleland South is highly unlikely to face significant difficulty from ZANU-PF elements, including the security forces, even if the returnee is a MDC member or supporter. A person may, however, be able to show that his or her village or area is one that, unusually, is under the sway of a ZANU-PF chief, or the like.
(5) A returnee to Harare will in general face no significant difficulties, if going to a low-density or medium-density area. Whilst the socio-economic situation in high-density areas is more challenging, in general a person without ZANU-PF connections will not face significant problems there (including a "loyalty test"), unless he or she has a significant MDC profile, which might cause him or her to feature on a list of those targeted for harassment, or would otherwise engage in political activities likely to attract the adverse attention of ZANU-PF, or would be reasonably likely to engage in such activities, but for a fear of thereby coming to the adverse attention of ZANU-PF.
(6) A returnee to Bulawayo will in general not suffer the adverse attention of ZANU-PF, including the security forces, even if he or she has a significant MDC profile. …”
34. On the Judge’s findings, the Appellant has no significant MDC profile, and his decision to engage in political activities in the United Kingdom was a cynical attempt to bolster his asylum claim. His return to Zimbabwe would not expose him to a real risk of having to demonstrate loyalty to ZANU-PF. There is no suggestion that the Appellant would be returning to a rural area. In his witness statement, the Appellant gave evidence that he was from Mutare, as opposed to a rural area. He would be of no interest to the authorities upon return to Zimbabwe. We find that the Judge’s decision is entirely consistent with the country guidance.
35. In truth, the Appellant’s grounds of appeal and Mr Muzenda’s submissions amount to no more than a disagreement with the Judge’s findings of fact. In considering those grounds and submissions sequentially, we have borne in mind the need to consider them cumulatively. We are unable to discern any greater substance when viewed cumulatively than when assessed individually.
Conclusion
36. For all these reasons, we find that the Judge made no error of law in dismissing the Appellant’s appeal. We uphold the Judge’s decision and dismiss this appeal.
Notice of decision
The First-tier Tribunal’s decision did not involve the making of an error of law. As such it is not necessary to set aside the decision.
The decision to dismiss the appeal is therefore confirmed.

Zane Malik KC
Deputy Judge of Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
Date: 18 July 2025