Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-002437

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/02249/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

29th October 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SHERIDAN
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RICHARDS

Between

VM
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

Secretary of state for the Home Department
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Not represented
For the Respondent: Ms Tariq, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 6 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, 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
Introduction
1. The appellant is a citizen of Namibia who entered the UK and claimed asylum in December 2022. His claim, in summary, is that he faces a risk from his uncle who sexually and physically abused him. He claims that his uncle is the Minister of Defence and a senior figure in Namibia who has tracked him down to different parts of Namibia.
2. On 20 February 2024 the respondent refused the claim. The respondent did not believe the appellant was telling the truth about his uncle being a senior and powerful political figure; or about being abused by him. It was not accepted that the appellant faced a risk from his uncle (or otherwise) in Namibia. The respondent also considered whether removing the appellant would breach articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR and concluded that it would not.
3. The appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (“the FTT”) where his appeal came before Judge of the FTT Freer (“the judge”). In a decision dated 14 March 2025 the judge dismissed the appeal. The appellant now appeals against this decision.
Decision of the FTT
4. The judge did not accept that the appellant’s uncle is a high-ranking political figure who poses a risk to the appellant. The reasons the judge gave for reaching this conclusion include:
a. If the appellant’s uncle had wanted to kill the appellant he could have done so already.
b. The appellant gave inconsistent evidence about family support.
c. The appellant has been inconsistent about when key events occurred.
d. The appellant did not know the name of his uncle’s wife.
e. The account of the assaults occurring in a crowded home is implausible.
f. There was a lack of evidence corroborating the appellant’s claim to be related to Namibia’s Minister of Defence.
g. It is not plausible that the appellant’s uncle waited until the appellant was 26 and working as security guard to begin sexually molesting him rather than when the appellant was younger and more vulnerable.
h. It is not plausible that the appellant would have been unable to defend himself given his work as a security guard at the time the assaults occurred.
i. The appellant did not initially name his uncle when he made his asylum claim, and this is not explained.
5. The judge concluded in paragraph 66 that:
66. … there are numerous inconsistencies on central matters. For this reason, the account of being assaulted by a member of the Government is not accepted as a credible one.
6. In the FTT, the appellant sought to rely on a video of people suffering abuse at the hands of police in Namibia. No application had been made in respect of this evidence and the judge excluded the video on the basis that it did not relate to the appellant and his uncle. However, the judge acknowledged that this evidence was indicative of the appellant having no faith in the sufficiency of police protection in Namibia.
Grounds of Appeal
7. The appellant advanced four grounds of appeal.
8. Ground 1 submits that the FTT failed to take adequate account of how trauma, fear and cultural background affected the consistency of the appellant’s evidence. It is submitted in the grounds that this is contrary to the principle in HK v SSHD [2006] EWCA Civ 1037, which is said to recognise that inconsistencies in recounting traumatic experiences should not automatically discredit an asylum seeker’s credibility.
9. Ground 2 argues that the FTT failed to conduct a proper assessment of risk on return to Namibia, based on country conditions and the appellant’s individual vulnerabilities.
10. Ground 3 argues that the FTT failed to correctly apply the definition of a “particular social group” under the Refugee Convention and did not engage properly with the appellant’s human rights claim.
11. Ground 4 submits that the FTT failed to give adequate weight to the serious and ongoing risk of harm the appellant faces in Namibia, as well as the power imbalance and lack of state protection.
New Evidence
12. Prior to the hearing the appellant submitted a skeleton argument. This summarises the appellant’s claim to fear a powerful uncle who sexually abused him and who has been able to track him down in Namibia.
13. Included with the skeleton argument are copies of news articles about gender based and sexual violence in Namibia, as well as the arrest of Namibia’s agriculture minister for rape. In addition, the appellant has included a profile and photograph of Namibia’s Minister of Defence.
14. At the hearing, the appellant asked us to consider the new evidence submitted with the skeleton argument.
15. Ms Tariq argued that the new evidence should not be admitted because (a) it could have been submitted in the FTT; and (b) in any event, it is irrelevant to whether the judge erred in law.
16. We have considered the new evidence but, for reasons that are explained below, the evidence makes no difference to the outcome.
Submissions
17. We have not set out the submissions made at the hearing but have carefully considered them and incorporated them into our analysis.
18. The appellant asked us to look at the video that the judge in the FTT refused to admit. We have not done so, for reasons that are explained below.
Analysis
19. The central issue before the FTT was whether there was a real risk that the appellant’s uncle is a powerful political figure who abused him, as claimed by the appellant. The judge did not believe the appellant and gave a range of reasons for this, as summarised above in paragraph 4. These reasons include that the judge considered aspects of the appellant’s account implausible and that there were significant inconsistencies in the account that had been given.
20. The appellant argues that the FTT’s findings of fact are unsafe because the judge failed to properly take into account his fear and trauma. We are not persuaded by this submission because it is clear from the decision that the judge took into account the appellant’s fear and trauma: see paragraph 65 where the judge stated that he appreciated the painful nature of the experiences described by the appellant.
21. The appellant also argues that the judge failed to have adequate regard to the cultural background before making adverse credibility findings. It is in this context that HK v SSHD, the case cited in the grounds, is potentially relevant. In HK v SSHD the Court of Appeal highlighted the danger of relying on inherent probability in societies with very different customs and circumstances. There are two difficulties with the appellant’s “cultural difference” argument. The first is that nearly all of the adverse credibility findings are unrelated to any cultural issue. The second is that the appellant has not identified how, or in what way, the judge made incorrect assumptions about Namibian society/culture or has failed to take into account different cultural norms in Namibia. At the hearing before us, the appellant raised that in Namibia it is common to refer to an aunt or uncle by that designation rather than by their name but this does not explain why he would not know his aunt’s name (even if he did not use it when addressing her). In any event, it is clear that the judge would have reached the same conclusion without this adverse finding, as it was just one of many: see paragraph 4 above. We are therefore not persuaded that the judge’s credibility assessment is undermined by making incorrect assumptions based on cultural difference.
22. The law is clear that caution must be exercised before finding that a judge erred because a different finding of fact (or conclusion on the facts) could have been reached. See, for example, Lowe v SSHD [2021] EWCA Civ 62, where it is observed that “decisions of the trial judge will have regard to the whole of the sea of evidence presented to him, whereas an appellate court will only be island hopping”. The judge, who had the benefit of considering “the whole sea of evidence” reached a conclusion about the appellant’s uncle that was open to him, and which is supported by multiple clear reasons (as summarised in para. 4 above). The appellant’s challenge to the judge’s credibility assessment therefore cannot succeed.
23. The appellant’s case, both under the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the ECHR, was that he faces a risk of serious harm or death from his powerful uncle who assaulted and abused him in the past and who now intends to kill him. There was no other basis upon which he claimed to face a risk of serious harm or persecution in Namibia. Accordingly, having found the appellant’s account in respect of his uncle to not be credible, the only conclusion the judge could reach was that the appellant had failed to establish that there was a reasonable degree of likelihood that he would face a risk of harm in Namibia entitling him to protection under the Refugee Convention or the ECHR. It follows that the appellant cannot succeed under any of the grounds of appeal.
24. The new evidence submitted by the appellant and the video that was not admitted in the FTT do not assist the appellant because these materials have no relevance to the issue that the case turned on in the FTT, which is whether the appellant had been truthful about having a powerful uncle who abused him.

Notice of Decision
The decision of the FTT did not involve the making of an error of law and stands.

D. Sheridan

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

16.10.2025