Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-002312

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/56409/2024
LP/13699/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On the 12 August 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CANAVAN
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DOYLE

Between

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Appellant
and

SA
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr N Ahmed, counsel, instructed by Lincoln’s Chambers
For the Respondent: Mr S Walker, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 24 July 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. We make an anonymity direction because this appeal arises from the appellant’s protection claim.
2. This is an appeal by the Appellant against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Gordon-Lennox, dated 11/04/2025, which dismissed the Appellant’s appeal on all grounds.
Background
3. The Appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh. He claimed asylum in the UK on 08/09/2022. The Respondent refused the Appellant’s application on 27/02/2024.
The Judge’s Decision
4. The Appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. On 11/04/2025 First-tier Tribunal Judge Gordon-Lennox (“the Judge”) dismissed the Appellant’s appeal.
5. The Appellant lodged grounds of appeal, and, on 27/05/2025, Tribunal Judge Karbani granted permission to appeal. She said
2. The grounds aver that the FTTJ erred in (i) application of the wrong standard of proof when considering internal relocation and sufficiency of protection, (ii) failed to address those sequentially, (iii) in finding documentation was not genuine, (iv) made speculative adverse inferences under section 8 and (v) placed selective reliance on the CPIN.
3. I find that there is a material arguable error of law in finding that the documents provided by the appellant are not genuine [55], is an arguable error of law as it is for the respondent to prove a document is ‘forged’ if that is their case.
4. I find that the remaining grounds do not disclose any errors of law, as the FTTJ has explicitly referred to the correct standard of proof, explained by (ii) did not need to be determined given the other findings, has considered section 8 holistically, and sets out specific reference to the CPIN and applies the facts of this case to the background information.
5. Permission to appeal is granted on the (iii) only.
The Hearing
6. (a) For the Appellant, Mr Ahmed moved the single ground of appeal. He told us that the Judge misunderstood the documentary evidence. He took us to [50] of the Judge’s decision and said that, there, the Judge misinterprets the documents relating to the appellant’s BNP membership. He told us that the Judge failed to understand that the word “South” is used in both English and in Bengali in the documents provided.
(b) Mr Ahmed took us to [51] of the Judge’s decision and initially told us that the Judge was wrong to say that the original FIR had not been produced. He referred us to a notarised translation of an FIR and told us that the Judge should have relied on that document as if it was the original FIR written in Bengali.
(c) Mr Ahmed was critical of the Judge’s finding at [52] of the decision, and said that the Judge should not have found language used in a letter to be emotive or unprofessional because English was not the letter’s author’s first language.
(d) Mr Ahmed asked as to compare the Judge’s findings at [56] and [60] the decision. At [56] the Judge says that the appellant is not an impressive witness. At [60] the Judge says that the appellant is not a credible witness. Mr Ahmed asked us to find that there is a conflict between [56] and [60] of the decision.
(e) Mr Ahmed told us that the Judge dealt with the documentary evidence incorrectly. The Judge found that certain documents were not genuine; Mr Ahmed said that before doing so the Judge had already found that the appellant was not a credible witness. Mr Ahmed told us that the Judge should have considered all of the evidence holistically before making findings about credibility. Mr Ahmed argued that the Judge failed to properly assess the documentary evidence.
7. Mr Ahmed asked us to set the Judge’s decision aside.
8. For the appellant, Mr Walker resisted the appeal. He relied on the respondent’s rule 24 note and said that the decision does not contain an error of law, material or otherwise. He asked us to dismiss the appeal and allow the decision to stand
Analysis
9. The Judge considers the appellant’s evidence between [25] and [55] of the decision. The Judge considers the documentary evidence between [27] and [29], and then between [49] and [55] of the decision.
10. It is not correct to say that the Judge considered the appellant’s overall credibility before moving on to consider the documents. When [25] to [55] of the Judge’s decision are read in their entirety, it can be seen that the Judge considered each strand of evidence before finding that the appellant was neither an impressive witness nor a credible witness.
11. At [49] of the decision, the Judge correctly takes guidance from Tanveer Ahmed [2002] UKIAT 439 before looking in detail at the documents the appellant relies on. Between [50] and [54], the Judge gives reasons for finding that he cannot rely on the documents. The Judge concludes {55] of the decision by saying
I attach little weight to this evidence.
12. The Judge did exactly what he is supposed to do. He carefully assessed every source of evidence. The Judge declared at [24] that credibility is a central issue and then used the next thirty paragraphs of the decision to explain why he found the appellant to be neither credible nor reliable.
13. As part of his assessment of credibility, the Judge considered the documentary evidence. After considering each strand of evidence the Judge found that the appellant is not a credible witness. The Judge then went on to explain why he attaches little weight to the documentary evidence. There is no allegation of forgery. The Judge simply, and correctly, says that for good reasons he attaches little weight to the documentary evidence.
14. We acknowledge that the Judge’s reference to the documents not being ‘genuine and reliable’ when he summed up his findings on the evidence at [55] might have given rise to a superficial impression of a finding of forgery. However, when the decision is read as a whole it is clear that this was not what the Judge did. The Judge considered the evidence in the round before concluding that the documentary evidence was not sufficiently reliable and could not be given weight. This did not amount to a reversal of the burden of proof as argued in ground 3.
15. The Judge’s findings are entirely in line with Tanveer Ahmed [2002] UKIAT 439.
16. We find that the decision does not contain an error of law, but even if the appellant’s ground of appeal was made out and an error of law was established, the error would not be material because of the Judge’s unchallenged findings at [46], [48], [63] and [64] of the decision. In each of those paragraphs of his decision the Judge takes account of the significant change in the political landscape in Bangladesh since the appellant first claimed asylum.
17. The Judge gives good reasoning for his findings of fact. The Judge carefully analysed the evidence and then applied the law before reaching a decision well within the range of reasonable decisions available to the Judge.
18. The decision does not contain a material error of law. The Judge’s decision stands.

DECISION
The appeal is dismissed. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 11 April 2025 stands.

Signed Paul Doyle Date 24 July 2025
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Doyle