Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-002541
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/63340/2023
LP/12790/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 17 July 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE JACKSON

Between

DC
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr S Khaled of Counsel, instructed by MK Adams Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms L Clewley, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer (on 30 March 2026)
Mr E Tufan, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer (on 26 May 2026)

Heard at Field House on 30 March 2026 and 26 May 2026

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. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS

1. In a determination promulgated on 10 November 2025, I found an error of law in the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Cooper promulgated on 5 April 2025 and set aside that decision with preserved findings of fact. A copy of that decision is annexed to this one, which sets out the background to this appeal. This is the re-making of the Appellant’s appeal on protection grounds, there being no challenge to the findings of the First-tier Tribunal on Article 8 grounds and it being accepted at the hearing on behalf of the Appellant that this aspect of his claim would stand or fall with his protection claim.
2. The Appellant is a national of Bangladesh, who first entered the United Kingdom on 7 July 2011 with leave to remain as a student, which was ultimately extended to 30 April 2016. On 6 January 2021, he claimed asylum on the basis that he would be at risk on return to Bangladesh due to his political opinion, as a supporter of the Bangladesh National Party (the “BNP”) and in particular at risk from the Awami League who were then in power in Bangladesh.
3. The Respondent refused the application the basis that she did not accept the Appellant’s claim to be credible, that he was an active member or supporter of the BNP, nor that in any event he would be at any risk on return to Bangladesh. For the same reasons, the Appellant was not entitled to a grant of humanitarian protection and his removal would not breach Articles 2 or 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Appellant had not established any family life in the United Kingdom and did not meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules for a grant of leave to remain on the basis of private life as there were no very significant obstacles to his reintegration on return to Bangladesh. In particular, the Respondent relied on the Appellant having family in Bangladesh, that he had completed his education there and spoke Sylheti. There was no other basis for a grant of leave to remain within or outside of the Immigration Rules.
The appeal
The legal framework
4. There is no dispute between the parties as to the applicable legal framework under the Refugee Convention, which is therefore set out only in the briefest of terms. To succeed in an appeal on asylum grounds, an appellant must show a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason (race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, political opinion). The burden of proof is upon the Appellant. As per the decision in Karanakaran v SSHD [2000] 3 All ER 449 the single standard of proof is a reasonable degree of likelihood. I must determine whether it is reasonably likely that:
a) Taking the claim at its highest, there is a Convention reason;
b) Considering the credibility of the account, the Appellant fears persecution for that Convention reason;
c) The Appellant would be persecuted for that Convention reason;
d) There would not be sufficient protection available; and
e) The Appellant could not internally relocate.
5. Given the Appellant’s prior treatment, I have considered Para 339K of the Immigration Rules, specifically:
“339K. The fact that a person has already been subject to persecution or serious harm, or to direct threats of such persecution or such harm, will be regarded as a serious indication of the person’s well-founded fear of persecution or real risk of suffering serious harm, unless there are good reasons to consider that such persecution or serious harm will not be repeated.”
The Appellant’s evidence
6. In his first written statement signed and dated 20 March 2024, the Appellant sets out his background and affiliation with the BNP in Bangladesh. I do not set out the detail contained therein as there are already preserved findings of fact in relation to these matters and as the statement pre-dates the change in government that happened later in 2024. It is the current position in Bangladesh that must now be considered in this appeal.
7. In his second written statement signed and dated 10 March 2025, the Appellant states that the situation in Bangladesh is unstable and there remained a significant portion of government officials in place who were pro-Awami League. There remains a case pending against the Appellant and because of the Awami League affiliations of many in official positions, he would not receive state protection and would remain at risk in Bangladesh. After 5 August 2024 there have been many attacks on BNP activists and members, resulting in many deaths.
8. In his third written statement signed and dated 23 March 2026, the Appellant refers to the elections in Bangladesh held on 12 February 2026 in which the BNP won the majority of seats and have formed the current government. The Appellant states that he still fears return to Bangladesh on the basis of cases against him that have not been resolved and that he is still considered to have absconded and has a warrant of arrest issued against him, such that he could be brought before the Court.
9. The Appellant attended the hearing on 30 March 2026, adopted his written statements and gave evidence through a Court appointed Sylheti interpreter. In cross-examination, the Appellant was asked if he had spoken to his lawyer about whether the case against him in Bangladesh could be dropped. He stated that he did on 18 February, when he was told that the case is still there and they don’t drop them, it is not possible and the same Judges, police, army chief and President are all in place from the previous government. When asked how the Appellant knew this as this information was not in the letter from his lawyer, he stated that he called his lawyer but couldn’t reach him, so his brother told him about this and his brother instructed the lawyer. The Appellant was asked how his brother did this, to which he stated that he did not understand the question because of the medication he was taking. When asked why there was no evidence about asking for information about dropping the case, the Appellant stated that he did not have enough time because he was taking medication for his mental health.
10. At this point, I paused the Appellant’s evidence to check with Mr Khaled whether there was any application for the Appellant to be treated as a vulnerable witness or any evidence as to mental health. He confirmed that there was not and that no adjustments were needed.
11. There were further straightforward questions asked which the Appellant stated that he did not understand, although he was able to answer some further questions. The Appellant stated that he did not know when his case was to be heard in Bangladesh, although he had asked the question and the response from his lawyer was that he would be arrested, taken to prison and tortured. The Appellant confirmed that his lawyer would appear in Court in Bangladesh on his behalf when argument was heard on the case, but added that law and enforcement agencies and the police were visiting the family home in Bangladesh and searching it. The last occasion was in February 2026. This information was not included in the Appellant’s witness statement because it was Ramadan and he did not have enough time, also everything in Bangladesh was closed for five days for Eid.
12. The Appellant was asked how closures in Bangladesh prevented the Appellant from including further information in his own witness statement in the United Kingdom, to which he stated that “they visit anytime and continuously”. I checked if the Appellant understood the question, to which he replied that yes, he did understand, but did not understand many things because of his medication. The Appellant’s evidence was paused again for Mr Khaled to take instructions and consider whether the Appellant should be treated as a vulnerable witness as I was concerned as to his apparent level of understanding and contradictory statements made. Further to this, Mr Khaled stated that the Appellant is currently taking three different medications for diabetes and depression, but had not taken any of the medication on the day of the hearing which was affecting his ability to give evidence. Mr Khaled was unable to assist by reference to any medical evidence as to how not taking a dose of medication that day affected the Appellant but suggested that this was a matter of common sense. He suggested that the Appellant be treated as a vulnerable witness and that his evidence should continue and the Appellant be reminded to state if he does not understand a question. The difficulty with this approach was the absence of any assessment of the Appellant’s health or its impact (if any) on his ability to give evidence and no indication at all as to what adjustments may be needed for him to give evidence. The further proposal from Mr Khaled to continue and see how it goes, with an adjournment at a later point if needed was strongly resisted by the Respondent in the absence of this issue being raised prior to the hearing and in the absence of any relevant evidence in relation to it.
13. I considered in all of the circumstances that the hearing should be adjourned part-heard and part-way through the Appellant’s evidence because it was entirely unclear what, if any, medical conditions the Appellant was suffering from and what, if any, impact those had on his ability to give evidence; and in particular, whether there were any adverse effects of not taking prescribed medication on the day of the hearing. In fairness to the Appellant, these were potentially relevant matters to consider whether the Joint Presidential Guidance on vulnerable witnesses should be applied and ultimately relevant to the assessment of his credibility. In fairness to the Respondent, it would not be appropriate to continue with the hearing and then potentially adjourn later and start afresh, by which time the Appellant would have already had one attempt at answering relevant cross-examination points.
14. I adjourned the hearing with directions for the Appellant to file and serve medical evidence by 4pm on 20 April 2026, which must include details of his current mental health; current prescribed medication and/or treatment; the impact, if any, of that medication and the impact, if any, of missing a dose of any or all mediation prescribed. At the hearing, the Appellant was warned that absent medical evidence expressly setting out an adverse impact on his ability to give evidence from missing his medication (as per his case on the day), the evidence given so far would be taken into account. The Appellant’s response was filed late, with an explanation as to practical difficulties in obtaining an appointment with his GP to obtain this evidence and I granted the short extension of time requested.
15. The Appellant submitted a letter from Dr Sengupta at City Square Medical Group, dated 22 April 2026. The letter sets out the Appellant’s claimed history in Bangladesh and injuries said to have been sustained there, including trauma to the head, body, upper and lower limbs, with a scar on each arm, small spots on the abdomen and irregular patches on the Appellant’s leg. It is said that the Appellant was unable to seek proper medical help or have any investigations of his injuries.
16. Dr Sengupta states that since arriving in the United Kingdom, the Appellant has continued to exhibit signs of post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, including waking up screaming at night, fear, absent-mindedness, lack of concentration, forgetfulness, difficulties in communication and anxiety; alongside physical problems of high blood pressure, headaches and sleep disturbance. He goes on to state:
“During our conversation he appeared to be fidgety and sometimes lost the trail of thoughts and was unable to focus. There are some cognitive deficits with executive functioning (planning/reasoning) difficulties, memory loss, slow processing speed and sometimes difficulty with finding words. There are significant emotional and behavioural changes due to the trauma as well as PTSD- which manifests as emotional liability, rapid mood changes, social anxiety and sometimes increased irritability. There are some traits of reduced insight around his own behavioural and cognitive changes. [The Appellant] has also reported many traits of post-concussion syndrome like headaches, intermittent dizziness.
We have started him on Mitrazapine to help with his anxiety and would be followed up in GP. He is also taking medications for diabetes and has been advised to undergo blood tests, blood pressure monitoring, and urine tests.”
17. At the resumed hearing on 26 May 2026, Mr Khaled made a further application for the Appellant to be treated as a vulnerable witness on the basis of the letter above, which he stated was based on what must have been a sufficient assessment by the GP and inferred that this would have taken into account the Appellant’s medical history, even though it was inconsistent with the limited record of that previously submitted by the Appellant. In the absence of details in the letter as to measures appropriate for the Appellant to give evidence, Mr Khaled stated that simple, short questions should be put to the Appellant without repetition, with pauses between question and frequent breaks; all of which were agreed by Mr Tufan in respect of the further cross-examination.
18. The Appellant then gave evidence, as before, through a Court appointed Sylheti interpreter. The Appellant was asked again about contact with his lawyer as to whether the charges against him could be dropped. He stated that he had spoken to his lawyer and asked, but the case was still there and he had asked for a letter about it (this was the letter dated 25 March 2026). Since then, the Appellant stated that he had spoken to his lawyer who has asked for his charges to be dropped, but he has no further letter about this. No decision has yet been made on the case against the Appellant.
19. The Appellant was asked why he would be at risk on return to Bangladesh now given that the BNP are now in power, to which he stated that he if goes back he will be arrested, punished and tortured.
20. The Appellant does not have any family in the United Kingdom, but has a brother in Bangladesh who has assisted with contact with a lawyer there. The Appellant said that his brother would not however assist him on return to Bangladesh because he is facing his own problems, but the Appellant could not remember what those problems were.
21. I asked the Appellant a few questions for clarification, in particular whether his case had been referred to the inter-ministerial committee set up in Bangladesh to examine politically motivated cases and who had recommended many thousands already for withdrawal. The Appellant could not remember if he knew about this process and did not know if his case had been referred. His lawyer had told him that he will do what is necessary for the Appellant’s case and he could not remember if he had been in touch with any local party members in Bangladesh or whether they had referred his case for him.

The expert report
22. Md Solaiman (Tushar), Advocate of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh and head of Chambers at ‘Justice for All’ in Dhaka wrote an expert report dated 9 March 2025 in which he was asked to address the risks to the Appellant on return to Bangladesh due to his political activities, whether or not he remains politically active on return; the influence of Sheikh Hasina’s regime on the judiciary and bureaucracy; political violence since the regime change; international influence; recent political developments and judicial fairness.
23. I have considered the report in full but summarise only the main points here. First, Mr Solaiman’s opinion is that despite the fall of Sheikh Hasina and the Awami League government in August 2024, she continues personally to direct attacks on BNP leaders and activities and the Awami League is attempting a series of counter-revolutions and violent incidents (including arson), with the intention of creating anarchy, undermining the interim government and seeking to return to power. Mr Solaiman repeatedly refers to the Awami League taking revenge against the BNP and Jamaat leaders in particular. A number of specific incidents of violence are referred to throughout the report, although not all of which are identified as attacks by the Awami League on BNP and/or Jamaat leaders or activists.
24. Secondly, the Appellant remains at risk of violence and death for the reasons set out above and generally from the unrest in politics and the security situation in Bangladesh. The risk in this case would extend to the Appellant’s mother as well as even female members at the homes of BNP leaders, activities and supporters are not protected.
25. Thirdly, the institutions of the state remain heavily laden with Awami League members and influenced by them, with the post of army chief being given to a distant relative of Sheikh Hasina, with the Supreme Court being used as a tool for the Awami League government and the judiciary generally being complicit in ongoing gross abuse of human rights. Mr Solaiman says that the administration, the police, the army, the judiciary and main aides of Sheikh Hasina remained intact after she fled and that there was an attempt at a judicial coup with the support of India.
26. Fourthly, if the Appellant returns to Bangladesh, he would need to surrender before a court and they would send him to prison as he has absconded. It is unlikely that the Appellant would be granted bail. The Appellant’s legal position is weakened as he is overseas and has absconded, so ‘these’ procedural requirements (not identified) render him unable to defend the cases against him and meaning that his ability to secure a fair hearing is eroded. Two examples are given, one of a BNP supporter who was not granted bail and another case in which bail was granted; with additional examples of Awami League members being granted bail later on in the report.
27. Fifthly, following the fall of the Awami League government, there has been general instability, crime has increased, there is lack of medical treatment for those injured and floods have caused heavy damage with millions of people living under the sky and may without sufficient food. Mr Solaiman concludes that for these additional reasons, it would not be reasonable or practicable for the Appellant to return to Bangladesh.
Other documentary evidence
28. There is a letter dated 25 March 2026 from Md Abdul Muqhit, Advocate of the Judge’s Court, Sylhet which stated that testimony had been completed in the case filed against the Appellant in Kotwali Model Police Station (with case references given) and is currently scheduled for argument, with the verdict likely to be announced soon. It is said that there is a possibility the Appellant will be convicted and if found guilty, he may have to serve life imprisonment. As the Appellant has absconded, there is an arrest warrant for the Appellant and if he returns to Bangladesh, he will be arrested and sent to jail by the law enforcement agencies. Mr Muqhit states in addition that the Appellant’s opponents are constant looking for him along with local terrorists. A previous letter from the same person dated 27 September 2020 referred to the case against the Appellant, that the case was at that point taking evidence from witnesses and an arrest warrant had been issued as the Appellant had absconded.
29. In a written statement signed and dated 10 March 2025, Mr Afzal Hussain, the General Secretary of Bangladesh Jatiotabadi Jubodal in the UK, states that the situation in Bangladesh remains highly unstable with pro-Hasina officials appointed within state institutions consistently attempting to restore her government through counter-revolutionary efforts and cases filed during her tenure remain pending with no indication that politically motivated cases will be withdrawn. He states that there have been attacks on BNP party members and leaders as well as military convoys, such that it would not be safe for the Appellant to return to Bangladesh.
30. The bundle also contains a number of photographs and descriptions of the same as to the Appellant’s sur place activities; a First Information Report and arrest warrant; letters of support and various BNP letters. I do not set out the detail of any of these documents given there are preserved findings of fact as to the Appellant’s background and activities with the BNP. There are also various news articles and reports (including from Human Rights Watch and Odhikar, as well as the Respondent’s earlier Country Policy and Information Notes about Bangladesh) which predate the change of government in Bangladesh and have not been specifically relied upon now by the Appellant. There are some news articles which post-date the change of government (mostly dating up to February 2025) and the FCO travel advice which I have considered but in respect of most it is not necessary to set out any further detail in this decision.
31. There are a number of news articles in the Appellant’s supplementary bundle which refer, inter alia, to (i) the approval by the Ministry of Home Affairs of 1202 more ‘politically motivated’ cases against opposition leaders and activists during the Awami League government; and (ii) increasing delays in the court system, particularly for appeals against grants of bail, with rising backlogs and a shortage of Judges in all tiers, however, there has been disposal of several major political and constitutional cases. There are further news articles following the BNP’s success in the elections in February 2026.
32. The bundle includes a number of medical documents, including NHS letters relating to diabetic eye screening, a prescription (last one dated in November 2025) and limited GP records (printed 2025). The GP records show repeat prescriptions for Dapagliflozin, Metformin and Mitazapine last issued on December 2024 and active problems of fatigue (since September 2024) and Type 2 diabetes (from January 2024). Other previous physical conditions were noted in the history, but no mental health problems.
33. A medical report from Dr Baha Al-Wakeel, specialist in emergency medicine, dated 3 March 2025 sets out the author’s qualifications and opinions. In essence, it is a scarring report documenting evidence of past physical injuries and does not make any assessment of mental health or current physical health.

The CPIN
34. The Respondent’s Country Policy and Information Note, ‘Bangladesh: Political situation’ version 1 dated December 2024 sets out information relating to the protests leading up to the fall of the Awami League government in August 2024, the fall of the government and the immediate aftermath of it, including by the interim government. It concludes that although politically motivated violence occurs, it has generally declined since July and August 2024 and that leaders, members and supports of the BNP and their youth/student organisations are unlikely to face persecution or serious harm from the state. Further, in general, the state is able to provide effective protection to a person who fears a ‘rogue’ state and/or non-state actor and a person is likely to be able to internally relocate away from any localised threat.
35. I have considered the report in full and highlight only some of points contained in it below which are directly relevant to this appeal and/or are relied upon by the parties as follows:
(i) Para 3.1.12 – the interim government has the support of the Army and the main political parties (besides the Awami League) who agree on the need for reform. The interim government have released thousands of prisoners, detained during the protests alongside longer-term political prisoners, and signed the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances. The interim government has established commissions to reform the election system and public administration which are expected to deliver reports by the end of 2024. …
(ii) Para 4.1.4 – the interim government (since its formation in August 2024) has announced a series of reforms. This includes the establishment of commissions on police, the judiciary and anti-corruption. There have been major reshuffles in the police force, and a removal of those loyal to the AL including forced retirement, reinstating, or transferring policy officials, replacement of those implicated in abuses and the arrest of senior officers. The Inspector General of Police and head of RAB, the paramilitary organisation who have previously been responsible for human rights abuses, and the Supreme Court chief justice who resigned in the wake of the protests have been replaced. Three hundred lower court judges have been transferred or promoted. According to an interview with the International Crisis Group a senior judge noted that there was no longer the level of politicisation and pressure within the judiciary that there had been previously. …
(iii) Para 4.1.5 – despite initial instability in law and order, police have now returned to work, police stations are largely manned and functioning in most areas and the army has the power to disperse illegal rallies. The police and the criminal justice system are functioning although their effectiveness continues to be undermined by poor infrastructure, corruption, and bribery. …
Closing submissions for the Respondent
36. On behalf of the Respondent, Mr Tufan noted the previous positive credibility findings in respect of the Appellant as to his past involvement with the BNP in Bangladesh and the United Kingdom and submitted that the delay in making his asylum claim was not particularly relevant now.
37. As to the current circumstances, Mr Tufan submitted that there were processes in place now for the withdrawal of politically motivated cases, but this was not addressed at all by the Appellant’s lawyer and the Appellant’s evidence on this was not credible. There is no reason as to why such an application or referral could not have been made (or could not now be made) to have the case against the Appellant withdrawn.
38. On return to Bangladesh now, the Appellant’s claims that he would be persecuted because of his political opinion and imprisoned is not supported by the background country evidence and now that the BNP won a landslide election victory in February 2026. Due to the change in circumstances in Bangladesh, the Appellant would no longer be at risk as the party of which he is a member is now in power.
39. In relation to the expert report, Mr Tufan submitted that it is now outdated and does not take into account was has happened since the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Awami League government in August 2024, nor the recent elections this year. In any event, at its highest, the report identifies sporadic low level incidents and no evidence of any material reprisals by the Awami League or counter-revolution by their supporters. The report is based on little more than speculation and lacks sources for the matters cited. In relation to the expert’s claim that the institutions and members of those appointed by the Awami League remain entirely intact, this fails to take into account the evidence in the CPIN showing that even in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the government, steps had already been taken to undertake major reshuffles in personnel, removal of Awami League supporters and reinstatement of others (see in particular para 4.1.4 of the CPIN). Further, the report relies only on general unrest and does not explain why the Appellant would not be able to either have his case withdrawn or apply for bail.
40. For completeness, Mr Tufan submitted that there was very little evidence of any substantive private life developed in the United Kingdom by the Appellant since he ceased studying around ten years ago. He has not held any leave to remain since then and would be returning to family in Bangladesh and without any identified reason why they would not support his reintegration on return. Overall, the Appellant’s removal would be in the public interest and would not be a disproportionate interference with his right to respect for private life.
Closing submissions for the Appellant
41. On behalf of the Appellant, Mr Khaled submitted that the Appellant remains at risk on return to Bangladesh because of the pending case against him and the outstanding arrest warrant. The Appellant has previously been found to be credible and his lawyer has confirmed that the case against him is proceeding, with no possibility of it being withdrawn. If found guilty, the Appellant may be sentenced to life imprisonment and his claim is that he will be tortured following arrest. Even if detention were for a temporary period, there would still be a real risk of mis-treatment in prison. When asked for the evidence in support of the claimed risk of Article 3 breach in prison, Mr Khaled accepted that there was no evidence submitted on that point, but that it was a matter of common general knowledge that this would happen.
42. Mr Khaled further submitted that as the Appellant was not a high-profile BNP member, he would not receive any preferential treatment and would have to go through the normal legal process, which involves many members appointed by the Awami League and he submitted that there had not been any sufficient reshuffle of personnel. To the contrary, only two or three police officers have been transferred. Mr Khaled could not point to any evidence supporting his submission that in effect, only high profile members of the BNP would have their cases withdrawn, but again submitted that it was general public knowledge that someone would need a favour or connections to get a case withdrawn. He submitted that there is a huge backlog of cases in Bangladesh and even the now Prime Minister needed 18 months to clear his name to return.
43. Overall, Mr Khaled submitted that nothing had changed in the relevant state institutions in Bangladesh such that the Appellant would still be at risk on return; as well as at risk of breaches of Articles 3 and 8 due to prison conditions. There would be no sufficiency of protection available for the Appellant and no option of internal relocation. In relation to Article 8, the Appellant relied solely on his length of residence in the United Kingdom as to the extent of his private life here and would face very significant obstacles on return to Bangladesh as he would be returning as a stranger with medical problems and no support from his brother.
Findings and reasons
44. The issues in this appeal are (i) whether the Appellant would be at risk on return from the Awami League or the police due to his political opinion, namely his membership and support of the BNP; and if so, (ii) whether there would be a sufficiency of protection available to the Appellant in Bangladesh; and/or (iii) whether the Appellant could internally relocate in Bangladesh. As set out above, there are preserved findings of fact in relation to the Appellant’s Article 8 claim and in any event, he accepts that this claim stands or falls with his protection claim.
45. In summary, the following findings of fact were made by the First-tier Tribunal which are preserved for present purposes:
(i) the Appellant was an active member of the BNP in Bangladesh (having joined in 2007 and held positions of Senior Vice President of the Jokegonj Upaila brand and General Secretary of No. 1 Barohal Union) and has continued this in the UK from 2021 (with membership showing him as the Assistant Information and Research Secretary of the London city Judobal). His evidence is consistent with the account he gives in his interview dated the 8/11/2023. The photographic evidence supports his continued political activism in the UK. I note that 1 of the photographs is dated prior to when the appellant says he is active, however I do not find this undermines the credibility of the evidence as a whole, it could be an error, equally it could show activism before a defined membership date. The documentary evidence in the form of membership lists corroborates his account [para 22 FtT decision];
(ii) the warrant for the Appellant’s arrest dated 30/11/2020 issued in Bangladesh is genuine and was politically motivated, with a false charge being brought against the Appellant [para 27 of FtT decision];
(iii) the appellant was of adverse interest to members of the Awami League whilst in Bangladesh and continued to be after he left for the UK in 2011 [para 28 FtT decision];
(iv) the delay in the Appellant’s protection claim was detrimental to it pursuant to section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants) Act 2004 but not determinative of it;
(v) the Appellant’s removal would not be a disproportionate interference with his right to respect for private and family life contrary to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
46. In terms of the three issues remaining, I consider first the weight to be attached to the key sources of evidence and then the Appellant’s credibility.
47. I begin by considering the expert evidence of Mr Soliaman. I attach very little weight to the expert report for the following reasons:
(i) The report is not up to date with developments in Bangladesh, in particular it significantly pre-dates the elections in February 2026 and deals only with the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Awami League Government in August 2024.
(ii) The report contains a substantial amount of vague assertions and opinions which are not supported by any identified sources. For example, in para 16 (and similarly in paras 17), Mr Soliaman’s opinion is that the Awami Leage is trying to make one counter-revolution after another and wants to seize power again at any cost by causing violent incidents, but there is no reason given for this other than that they have previously been in power for a long time. There is no supporting source or evidence for this conclusion, which follows a small number of paragraphs essentially copied from the same small number of news articles detailing two isolated incidents of violence and a third-party account of a YouTube video (see below). Another example is in para 29 which refers to an attempt of judicial coup with the support of India which is entirely unsourced and on which there is very little detail, without even reference to when this happened.
(iii) A substantial amount of the report is simply copied and pasted from news articles (subject to minor amendments to identify, for example, a name or title, or to add a specific date where an article refers to a day of the week, or a very slight change of wording) without any express recognition that this is what was done by way of quotation. The report reads as if Mr Solaiman has written it himself, without the news articles being identified with quotation marks, but when one looks at the sources, the material is simply copied virtually word for word from various press articles. An example is in para 51 of the report, which reads as if a direct answer by Mr Solaiman to the question of whether the interim government includes members of the main opposition and/or individuals affiliated with the Awami League. However, the entire paragraph is in substance a direct copy and paste (save for amending a day of the week to a date) from an unauthored online news article.
(iv) The quality of the sources cited is questionable and their credibility is not self-evidently assessed or considered by Mr Solaiman. For example, numerous press articles cited have no identified author and where press articles refer to an original source, Mr Solaiman does not appear to have gone to the original material for the purposes of his report nor is the original source cited. An example of the latter is para 15 of the report which is copied almost word for word from a news article with no identified author and which refers to a YouTube video from a named journalist, but no reference to the video itself or any indication Mr Solaiman considered it or its reliability. Another example is at para 31 which is almost entirely copied and pasted from a news article with no identified author, which refers to a government press release, but that is not cited, nor it seems considered by Mr Solaiman directly. Another example of failing to refer to the actual source material is in paragraph 60 where a news article is referred to instead of the source material of the report by Odhikar.
(v) Some parts of the report are not set out in a neutral or factual way and tend instead to portray a particular view point. For example, paragraph 57 begins:
“The government led by Sheikh Hasina committed the largest and most brutal genocide in July-August 2024 since the independence of Bangladesh. Although Sheikh Hasina was overthrown in the student movement, no significant steps have been taken to prosecute the genocide. The ICT has issued an arrest warrant for Sheikh Hasina and her allies for name-calling …”
The beginning of this paragraph is not supported by the preceding paragraphs which set out initial steps being taken to investigate and prosecute a number of individuals and appears to pre-empt such a process with a conclusion of not just a genocide, but the largest and most brutal one in Bangladesh and then minimises the process by referring to it in different terms of ‘name-calling’. The paragraph fails to meet the required standard of objectivity.
(vi) The parts of the report that deal specifically with the Appellant’s circumstances lack detail and explanation, largely extrapolating conclusions from isolated examples or other broad assertions without any analysis of his particular circumstances or how these relate to the very specific examples relied upon. For example, in para 21, Mr Solaiman states that even female members at home are not being protected from attacks from which he concludes that there is also a fear of attack on the Appellant’s mother. However, no sources are cited and no examples are given of any attacks on female family members and the Appellant’s mother’s circumstances are not set out or considered at all, nor is there, for example, any consideration of whether she has faced any risk at any point in the past due to the Appellant’s political beliefs nor reasons why she would personally face such a risk now. Another example is in paras 61 and 62 which fail to identify any of the relevant legal or procedural provisions referred to which would apply to the Appellant or the specific effect of them on him beyond a general statement that these unspecified requirements or rules would weaken his position. There are no reasons given as to why the Appellant could not successfully apply for bail.
48. In contrast, the CPIN sets out clearly sourced information, albeit suffers from the same difficulty that it is now significantly out of date and does not deal with more recent developments in Bangladesh such as the February 2026 elections or new BNP government; nor as to the process of withdrawal of politically motivated cases against political opponents of the Awami League government. However, I attach weight to the evidence up to its date of publication in December 2024 as to the changes that were already in progress following the appointment of the interim government.
49. I turn next to the Appellant’s credibility and the starting point from the preserved findings of fact that his evidence as to his past history in Bangladesh and sur place activities in the United Kingdom have been found to be credible, as has the arrest warrant issued in his name.
50. I have considered whether the Appellant should be treated as a vulnerable witness for mental health reasons, based on the application by Mr Khaled and the letter from his GP dated 22 April 2026. I find that there is insufficient evidence before me to do so as (i) there is no evidence at all of any formal diagnosis of any mental health condition (and to the contrary, as at late 2024/early 2025 there was no record of any active or past mental health conditions at all); (ii) the letter from the GP fails to identify any formal assessment or testing of the Appellant as to mental health, cognitive deficits or memory loss; (iii) the letter form the GP fails to identify whether the symptoms referred to were evident from the single consultation at that time or whether they have been recorded or reported over any longer time period (and if so how, or to whom and for how long); and (iv) there is no assessment by the GP or otherwise of the impact of any conditions (diagnosed or otherwise) on the ability of the Appellant to give evidence in support of his appeal or what, if any, adjustments were required to enable him to do so. I further note that despite express directions for evidence to be filed on the effect on the Appellant of not taking a dose of any of his medication on the first day of hearing (given this was his explanation for having difficulties on that day), this was not addressed at all in the GP’s letter.
51. On the scant evidence available and for the reasons set out above, I do not accept that the Appellant has been diagnosed with or is suffering from any mental health condition nor that he has any cognitive deficit or memory problems. Further, I do not accept that his ability to give evidence in this appeal has been affected by any mental health problems (diagnosed or otherwise); any cognitive deficit or memory problems; nor from failing to take any particular dose of medication. The Appellant has simply failed to establish any of these matters despite being given an express opportunity to do so. In these circumstances, the Appellant is not a vulnerable witness, but in any event I have considered the spirit of that guidance, in particular, referring to objective evidence as to current risk below.
52. Although the Appellant’s claim was previously found to be credible, I did not find his evidence before me on the current situation and his current circumstances to be of the same quality or reliability; nor was it supported by any reliable background country evidence. In particular, the Appellant evaded answering straightforward questions and failed to explain various assertions or aspects of his own evidence, specifically about contact with his lawyer in Bangladesh and about his brother’s involvement and circumstances. Although the Appellant had himself submitted evidence about the withdrawal of politically motivated cases, he was unable to explain or evidence why there had been no attempt in relation to this own case for it to be referred to the relevant committee for withdrawal or why his lawyer, nor any political associates had taken any such action. There was no explanation at all as to why his case would not be suitable for referral or withdrawal either. Overall, whilst the Appellant’s past history has been sufficiently established, I do not find even to the lower standard of proof applicable in protection claims that he has established that he remains at risk due to is involvement with the BNP or due to the arrest warrant previously issued. For the reasons set out below, this is particularly so in light of the significant changes that have occurred in Bangladesh, including that his own political party are in power with a significant majority and there is evidence of the withdrawal of thousands of politically motivated cases and the release of political prisoners.
53. In any event, regardless of any credibility issues, I do not find that objectively the Appellant is at risk on return due to his political opinion or association with the BNP; or because of an arrest warrant for the following reasons. First, the political party he fears, the Awami League, have not been in government since August 2024. Their leader has fled, many senior figures have resigned or have been replaced and they have no seats following the elections in February 2026. There is nothing to suggest that the Awami League or any of its members any longer have any power or influence in Bangladesh at all and there is an almost complete lack of evidence of any attempts to regain power or take revenge (except perhaps a few isolated incidents in the immediate aftermath of the fall of their government).
54. Secondly, although it is acknowledged that there were significant numbers of appointments to state institutions of Awami League supporters during their time in government; within months of the fall of the Awami League government there had already been significant changes to address this issue including within the police and the judiciary, with reinstatements, retirements and people moved. I reject entirely Mr Khaled’s suggestion to the contrary in his closing submissions that there had only been two or three police officers transferred and that nothing at all had changed given that this was directly contrary to the CPIN and without any evidential foundation. Mr Solaiman’s report lacked detail on this point in particular.
55. Thirdly, the BNP won a significant majority in the elections in February 2026 and are now in power in Bangladesh. There is no rational basis upon which to suggest that the Appellant would remain at risk from the state given the party of which he is a member is now in control and would rationally have a vested interest in ensuring its own members did not face persecution by reason of their political views.
56. Fourthly, whilst there is an arrest warrant in the Appellant’s name issued in Bangladesh in relation to a case against him; there is no dispute that this was a politically motivated false case. There is a news article referring to such cases being withdrawn in significant numbers and I also raised with the Appellant directly the inter-ministerial committee process for referring such cases to be authorised for withdrawal which I am aware of from other similar appeals. No explanation could be given as to why the Appellant’s case could not referred (or has not yet been referred) nor any reason why it would not, amongst thousands of others that already have been, be withdrawn. The Appellant’s lawyer does not address this at all despite a relatively recent letter and claimed phone conversation about it; nor is there any expert evidence on the process. Mr Khaled’s suggestion in closing submissions that the Appellant would not benefit from this as he was not a high-profile BNP member was again entirely without evidential foundation and again, this is something which is very far from being general public knowledge or of which judicial notice could be taken. This was one of a number of examples of Mr Khaled coming very close to inappropriately giving evidence to the Tribunal in the guise of closing submissions, which he had no proper basis to do and which I also entirely reject on this specific point.
57. Fifthly, there are no reasons before the Tribunal as to why the Appellant would not be able to apply for bail (even if his case is not withdrawn before his return) or why he would not otherwise be able to defend himself against a false charge. He stated that he has a lawyer who is representing him and there is a lack of any cogent or detailed evidence to suggest that he would not receive a fair trial, particularly in the context of (i) reforms to the judiciary which began in late 2024; (ii) the change to an interim and now a BNP government; and (iii) news articles which refer to resolution of political cases, by both withdrawal and by the courts, despite growing backlogs in the latter.
58. For all of these reasons, the Appellant has not established, even to the lower standard of proof, that he has a well-founded fear of persecution on return to Bangladesh now. Further and in any event, the background country evidence set out in the CPIN shows that there is a sufficiency of state protection in Bangladesh to the Horvarth standard (which, although given little weight for the reasons set out above, is to some extent supported by Mr Solaiman’s report which refers to a number of examples of police action and investigation) and the Appellant has not given any reasons as to why internal relocation would not be reasonable for him.
59. In closing submissions only, Mr Khaled submitted that the Appellant would be at real-risk of mis-treatment in prison even if detained for a temporary period. This was not previously raised as a ground of appeal or even an issue in the appeal by the Appellant and there is no evidence in support of it at all, as accepted by Mr Khaled, and it is very far from ‘common general knowledge’ as he suggested. This submission was wholly without foundation and in any event, there is country guidance to the contrary in SH (prison conditions) Bangladesh CG [2008] UKAIT 00076. There is no real risk to the Appellant of mis-treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights or otherwise on the basis of any period of detention in Bangladesh.
60. For all of these reasons, the Appellant’s appeal is dismissed on all protection grounds. There was nothing distinct by way of substance to any separate human rights appeal, which is dismissed for the same reasons as given originally by the First-tier Tribunal.
Notice of Decision
The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did involve the making of a material error of law and as such it was set aside.
The decision is remade as follows:
The appeal is dismissed on protection grounds
The appeal is dismissed on human rights grounds

G Jackson

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

2nd July 2026

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-002541
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/63340/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

…………………………………

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE JACKSON

Between

DC
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr S Khaled of Counsel, instructed by MK Adams Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr E Terrell, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 21 October 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the Appellant
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 First-tier Tribunal Judge Cooper promulgated on 5 April 2025, in which the Appellant’s appeal against the decision to refuse his protection and human rights claim dated 22 November 2023 was dismissed.
2. The Appellant is a national of Bangladesh, who first entered the United Kingdom with leave as a student on 7 July 2011, ultimately extended to 30 April 2016. On 6 January 2021, the Appellant claimed asylum.
3. The Respondent refused the application the basis that the core of his claim was not accepted as credible and therefore it was not accepted that he was an active member or supporter of the BNP, nor at any risk on return from the Awami League or otherwise. The Appellant was not entitled to asylum or humanitarian protection and nor would his removal breach Articles 2 or 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Appellant had not established any family life in the United Kingdom and would not face very significant obstacles to his reintegration on return to Bangladesh where he had family, had completed his education and given that he spoke Sylheti; such that he did not meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules for a grant of leave to remain on private or family life grounds and there was no other basis for a grant of leave outside of the rules.
4. Judge Cooper dismissed the appeal in a decision promulgated on 5 April 2025 on all grounds. The Appellant was found to be credible in his claim that he was an active member of the BNP in Bangladesh and in the United Kingdom from 2021; that he had been beaten up following a demonstration in 2008 and that there had been a politically motivated false charge against him resulting in an arrest warrant dated 30 November 2010. As such, at the time the Appellant left Bangladesh in 2011, it was accepted that he was at risk from the Awami League. However, since then there had been a change in the political situation in Bangladesh and by reference to an expert report, whilst there was a degree of uncertainty as to the future situation, at present, in accordance with the Respondent’s CPIN, the Appellant would not be at risk on return, generally or due to the outstanding false criminal charges. Finally, the Appellant’s human rights appeal was dismissed as his removal would not be a disproportionate interference with his right to respect for private life.
The appeal
5. The Appellant was granted permission to appeal on three grounds. First, that the First-tier Tribunal erred in law by making inadequate findings on the Appellant’s risk on return taking into account the positive credibility findings with the core of his claim having been accepted. Secondly, that the First-tier Tribunal failed to adequately engage with the expert report and instead placed too much reliance on the CPIN in relation to a transitional period in Bangladesh in which many members of the Awami League were still entrenched within the state authorities. Finally, that these errors also infected the final Article 8 assessment by the First-tier Tribunal.
6. At the oral hearing, on behalf of the Respondent, Mr Terrell submitted that there was a material error of law in the First-tier Tribunal’s decision in relation to the background country material. Specifically, the First-tier Tribunal appeared to proceed on the basis that the expert report focused on future uncertainty as to the situation in Bangladesh whereas, whilst this featured, it did also deal in some detail with whether there would be a current risk on return for this Appellant as a member of the BNP and/or due to the arrest warrant. In these circumstances, whilst there may have been reasons why the evidence in the CPIN was preferred, there were no reasons given at all for this in the decision and the substance of the expert report was not engaged with.

Findings and reasons
7. The Respondent’s position in relation to the grounds of appeal was entirely appropriate and proper for the reasons given. There was a detailed expert report before the First-tier Tribunal which went far beyond speculation as to the future and included matters to the assessment of risk required at the date of hearing. The latter was simply not referred to or engaged with at all; nor were any differences between that evidence and what was contained in the CPIN resolved. The First-tier Tribunal gave no reasons at all as to why the CPIN evidence was preferred and it is impossible for the parties to know from the decision why it was. In these circumstances, there is a clear error of law for failure to properly take into account the expert report and for failure to give adequate reasons for the conclusion that the Appellant would no longer be at risk on return to Bangladesh.
8. As discussed at the hearing with the parties, for these reasons the decision of the First-tier Tribunal must be set aside and the appeal re-made. The findings as to the Appellant’s credibility and core of his claim have not been challenged in any way and are preserved. The sole issue on re-making will be as to whether the Appellant is now at risk on return to Bangladesh. If so, that is likely to be determinative of his Article 8 claim and if not, those findings are also likely to stand absent any new or updating information as to the Appellant’s private and/or family life. Given the limited issues outstanding, the appeal is suitable to be retained in the Upper Tribunal for further hearing and directions are given for that below.
Notice of Decision
The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did involve the making of a material error of law. As such it is necessary to set aside the decision.
I set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (with preserved findings of fact as set out above).
Listing directions
1. The appeal to be relisted on the first available date after 1 December 2025 before UTJ Jackson for a face-to-face hearing at Field House, with a time estimate of 2.5 hours. If an interpreter is required, the Appellant’s solicitors should confirm the language and any dialect as soon as possible.
2. Any further evidence upon which the Appellant wishes to rely must be filed and served no later than 14 days before the relisted hearing. For any other person who intends to give oral evidence at the hearing, a written statement (or updated written statement) is required to stand as their evidence in chief.
3. Any further evidence upon which the Respondent wishes to rely must be filed and served no later than 7 days before the relisted hearing.

G Jackson

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

21st October 2025