UI-2025-002621 & UI-2025-002622
- Case title:
- Appellant name:
- Status of case: Unreported
- Hearing date:
- Promulgation date:
- Publication date:
- Last updated on:
- Country:
- Judges:
The decision
INCLUDEPICTURE "cid:image003.png@01DB60FC.A4434A20" \* MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE "cid:image003.png@01DB60FC.A4434A20" \* MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE "cid:image003.png@01DB60FC.A4434A20" \* MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE "cid:image003.png@01DB60FC.A4434A20" \* MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE "cid:image003.png@01DB60FC.A4434A20" \* MERGEFORMATINET
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-002621
UI-2025-002622
FtT No: PA/55860/2024, LP/00709/2025
PA/57382/2024, LP/00708/2025
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 4 September 2025
Before
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SAFFER
Between
RM
HG
(Anonymity order made)
Appellants
and
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: Miss Chaudhury of Counsel
For the Respondent: Miss Blackburn a Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
Heard at Phoenix House (Bradford) on 18 August 2025
Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the Appellants are granted anonymity.
No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the Appellants, likely to lead members of the public to identify the Appellants. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.
DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellants, who are citizens of Honduras, appealed under the provisions of the Nationality, Immigration, and Asylum Act 2002 against the Respondent’s decisions dated 21 February 2024 to refuse their protection claim made on 30 January 2023. They now appeal against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge (FtTJ) Hands who dismissed the appeals following a hearing on 8 April 2025. In essence it was asserted that RM faced threats due to exposing corruption within local government, and HG (his daughter) experienced problems through her education and threats as a result of his activity. I will not delineate her claim separately as the grounds do not refer to her and Miss Choudhury conceded that her claim stood and fell with that of RM.
Permission to appeal
2. Permission was granted by FtTJ Dhanji on 13 June 2025 who stated:
“3. The grounds of appeal advanced are as follows:
i. The Judge misdirected himself in law when stating, at paragraph 33 of the Decision, that the First Appellant was “obligated” to seek protection in the first safe country in which he arrived and the findings the Judge made based on that misdirection materially infected the Judge’s conclusions on the First Appellant’s credibility (“Ground 1”);
ii. The Judge failed to take into account the plausibility of the Appellants’ account “against the background materials, and the view of the expert” (“Ground 2”);
iii. The Judge made an error of fact amounting to an error of law when he stated, at paragraph 45 of the Decision, that the First Appellant had never claimed that he had been directly approached by a hitman or a gang member (“Ground 3 ”).
4. In my judgment, Ground 2 identifies an arguable material error of law in the Judge’s decision. Having reviewed the Decision for myself, it is arguable that the Judge failed to have sufficient regard to the expert report of Dr Joseph Wiltberger when making his findings. The only reference to the report I can find in the Decision is a passing reference at paragraph 26. The expert evidence was arguably materially relevant to the Judge’s assessment of the First Appellant’s account given Dr Wiltberger’s opinion that the account the First Appellant had given is consistent with his knowledge of the situation in Honduras.
5. I see less merit in Grounds 1 & 3. However, I do not consider it appropriate to refuse permission on these grounds in light of the guidance at point 7 of the headnote in Rai & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Grounds of Appeal - Limited Grant of Permission) [2025] UKUT 150 (IAC).”
The FtTJ decision
3. FtTJ Hands found:
“26. The first Appellant’s fear of hitmen comes from the fact the Diana Avula, who was the head of human resources while he served as a councillor, was related to one. The Appellant believed that no matter where he lived in Honduras, a hitman would find him and once a hitman has someone as a target, the hitman never forgets. The first Appellant said all the threats he received were from within the local council, he has made no reference to the gang culture as referred to by the expert in his report other than to say they exist throughout Honduras. Both Appellants were certain that all their problems were from the local council and that they had no issue with central government. I believe this is because they were both able to travel to the capital to obtain documents in support of the account they planned to provide in their asylum claim. In my judgement, absent of involvement with gang culture or direct threats from a hitman, the Appellants have established that they face no threat to their lives outside of their local area in Danli, or outside the area governed by the local council with which the first Appellant was involved.
27. The first Appellant has presented documents, all of which are certified in 2022. His marriage took place in 2020. He said he obtained these documents from this Tribunal in his home area before taking them to Central Government to be stamped. He confirmed that the central government had no issue with him as this was the sole domain of the local government in the area within which he lived, worked and served on the council for four years…
29. I am satisfied by my perusal of these documents that the first Appellant was involved in the founding of the university within which he worked until 2019, that he served in local politics from at 2009 until 2012, that he is married, that he has no criminal convictions and that he has mental health issues, for which he received treatment in Honduras and continues to receive treatment here in the United Kingdom.
30. I am not satisfied that he has continued to receive threats after leaving political office, that his name is on the list of any hitman or that he could not continue to live in Danli after January 2023 in the same way he lived there both before and after his period as a local councillor. The first Appellant said he could only live safely over the ten year period by living quietly and not going out but during that period he travelled to Spain and Austria in 2017, then he travelled to and from the United States in 2019 and 2021 and although detained briefly at the airport was able to travel freely thereafter. Finally, he travelled to the United Kingdom in July 2022. He was also able to leave in January 2023 without any hindrance.
…
35. The First Appellant has children from a previous marriage who are residing in Honduras. Other than his son hearing comments about his father and ‘being aware of the situation,’ his son has not received any personal threats and nor have the matters referred to by the first Appellant impacted his life. The first Appellant said his son works from home in Danli, but many people now work from home and there is no information before me that would suggest doing so in Honduras is outside of the norm. His other two children from his first marriage have not had any adverse interest or interference in their lives because of the events referred to by the first Appellant. In my judgement, it is clear that any interest in the first Appellant does not extend to the family he has left behind in Honduras. This casts doubt over the Appellant’s evidence that the family he has brought with him to the United Kingdom faced any threat or risk to their life.
…
43. The Appellants do not claim that they were personally threatened by gang members or a hitman or someone on behalf of a hitman…
44. The family had been living in Honduras for more that a decade since the first Appellant gave up politics. He chose to give up politics and he chose to leave his employment…the Appellants have researched and planned their migration to the United Kingdom for economic reasons, erroneously believing that they could settle here as refugees because of the first Appellant’s political opinion and the imputed political opinion of the second Appellant. I have a duty to look at all the evidence before me and make my decision based on that evidence alone.
45. Looking at all the evidence in the round, I find that these Appellants have not established to the standard of proof required that they are in need of international protection in terms of the Refugee Convention because of their political opinion, imputed or not. Whilst a general reference was made to one of the first Appellant’s council colleagues being related to a hitman, at no point has the first Appellant claimed that he was directly approached by a hitman or a member of any gang. In fact, he has pointed out that all the threats came from within the local council and at no time has he had an issue with the central government.
…
47. In my judgement, the Appellants can return to Honduras and if they can no longer live in Danli because I have reached the wrong decision in respect of the threat to their lives there, they can relocate to the capital city or an area of Honduras where the central government is in control as they have both said there is no issue with the central government.
48. I, therefore, determine that the Appellants’ claims do meet the test that on a balance of probabilities, taking the Appellants’ claim at its highest there is a convention reason and the Appellants fear persecution for that convention reason. However, I do not find that it is reasonably likely that the Appellants would be persecuted for that Convention reason because I do not accept that the rogue state actors they claim to fear are either hitmen or gang members but are bureaucrats in the local government where the first Appellant used to be a member.”
Submissions
4. Miss Blackburn stated that the appeal was opposed despite there not being a Rule 24 notice.
5. Miss Choudhury submitted in relation to Ground 1 that [33] set the theme and has a bearing on the assessment. In relation to Ground 2, the plausibility of the account was not set against the experts evidence as it was only touched upon. In relation to Ground 3 the error was material as a direct threat was referred to.
6. Miss Blackburn submitted in relation to Ground 1 that the Judge was required to consider Section 8. In relation to Ground 2, the Judge refers to the expert at [26] and to the general country situation. There was a general awareness. The Judge does not say that the account is implausible and gave adequate reasons for her conclusions. In relation to Ground 3, the Judge seemed to be referring to no hit man approaching RM in the street. If there was an error is not material as the Judge refers to calls and the vehicle issue.
7. Miss Choudhury responded that in relation to Ground 3, there was no direct approach was not what was said in q50 of the substantive interview.
Discussion
8. In assessing the Grounds, I acknowledge the need for appropriate restraint by interfering with the decision of the FtT Judge bearing in mind its task as a primary fact finder on the evidence before it and the allocation of weight to relevant factors and the overall evaluation of the appeal. Decisions are to be read sensibly and holistically; perfection might be an aspiration but not a necessity and there is no requirement of reasons for reasons. I am concerned with whether the Appellants can identify errors of law which could have had a material effect on the outcome and have been properly raised in these proceedings.
9. In relation to Ground 1, the Judge erred in stating that “someone fleeing their country of nationality in fear for their life is obligated to seek protection in the first safe country in which they arrive” as there is no such obligation. That behaviour can damage their credibility as explained by the Judge at [31-34] by failing to claim asylum in Spain and the Netherlands on route here and when in Austria and the USA on other occasions, by lying on arrival as to the reason for the visit, and by the delay in the claim. The Judge was plainly entitled to find that this behaviour materially affected his credibility but noted that “this is just one of several factors I am taking into account in my overall credibility finding”. Accordingly the incorrect use of the word “obligated” was not material. Indeed this was considered after the primary findings were made in [25-30]. It did not therefore infect the previously made findings but supplemented them. There was therefore no material error of law disclosed in Ground 1.
10. In relation to Ground 2, Dr Joseph l Wiltberger, an academic cultural anthropologist and acknowledged expert on Central America including Honduras considered the papers and reported (3 October 2024) that in his opinion;
“58. [RM] faces a high likelihood of being tortured or killed should he return to Honduras because he was previously targeted with death threats after he revealed corruption among state institutions. Such threats are extremely serious, and as [RM] reports, at least one of the individuals he identified as involved with corrupt activities had familial ties to a dangerous hitman involved with criminal activities. As my report details, there are deep ties between state institutions, actors, and powerful criminal organizations, including drug cartels and gangs, so this kind of tie between a corrupt state actor and a criminal actor is not surprising at all.
59. It is likely that such a hitman, and others who are keen on targeting [RM] because of his activism against state corruption, are entangled with criminal organizations such as Los Cachiros, the Sinaloa cartel, MS-13, and/or Barrio 18, or another powerful group. These are powerful organizations known for their relentless and brutal violence. The Honduran government has not only been unable to stop such organizations, but state officials frequently work with such organizations to be able to facilitate violent retaliation. This dynamic increases the danger that [RM] faces upon returning to Honduras, in addition to the threat of violence by corrupt government officials and other allies such individuals have.
60. As my report details, the National Party had dominant political power in Honduras for many years, and at the time, he was threatened. The party has a track record of deep involvement with such criminal organizations, of severe corruption, and of targeting activists and opponents who stood up to state corruption, violence, and unjust political agendas. [RM] fits this profile, and so it is consistent with my findings and expertise that he would have been targeted by political officials with obligations to this party. [RM]’s opposition to the corruption of the National Party makes for a very high likelihood that he would be tortured or killed should he return to Honduras because he was previously threatened in this political context.
…
62. Safe relocation would be infeasible for [RM] and [HG], in my opinion. Criminal organizations all have a widespread presence in Honduras and keep their targets under close surveillance to be able to follow through on their threats and intentions to kill someone. Because state actors are behind the threats against him, they can utilize their communications and institutional ties with corrupt law enforcement and state officials in other parts of the country to track down [RM] and [HG] no matter where he attempts to relocate.
63. I do not believe that [RM] or his family members can count on state authorities, the justice system, or the police for protection. Reporting threats or a crime can be dangerous since suspicion that the person is reporting on state actors, gang members, or members of a criminal organization is likely to be met with retaliation. As my report explains, in Honduras, police corruption is rampant, and a faction of the police is known to work with criminal organizations. The impunity rate is extremely high, and Honduran citizens express substantial distrust in state authorities. … Honduran law enforcement and the justice system have failed to effectively address criminal violence, and state corruption is rampant across institutions and levels of government, which undermines any such efforts. … the family of current President Xiomara Castro and her ruling party have not been found to be involved in corrupt dealmaking with powerful criminal organizations, a situation that is contributing to instability and undermining the presumption that the government is taking meaningful action to address endemic corruption, criminal organizations. Rather, such corruption and dealmaking suggests that the state is not willing to protect its citizens but is willing to protect powerful criminal organizations who are involved with the government.”
11. The Judge summarised the background evidence in [42];
“I accept that life in Honduras is different from life in the United Kingdom because of the prevalence of gangs and their connections within governments, both local and national. I accept there is widespread corruption and that the transportation of drugs leads to gang warfare with areas in towns and cities being divided into different gang areas as they take control. I accept that the two main gangs, MS13 and Bario 18 have infiltrated the government. The security services and the police. However, the threat this all poses is to the general public in Honduras and the Appellants would have to establish that the threat to them is personal and beyond the everyday threat to the general citizen living their life in Honduras.”
12. It was not submitted that this is an erroneous summary or in conflict with the evidence of Dr Wiltberger. The Judge had plainly read the report as she said at [26] that “he has made no reference to the gang culture as referred to by the expert in his report…”The Judge gave adequate reasons for her conclusion that RM was not reasonably likely to be at risk, namely the ability to move within and in and out of Honduras freely over many years, and the lack of fear of the central government. The expert’s report was based on an assumption that the facts were as claimed. It was the Judge’s function to make those findings which she did. I do not therefore accept that the Judge materially erred in her assessment of the expert evidence.
13. In relation to Ground 3, it is recorded in the answer to question 50 to be found at page 717 of the Upper Tribunal bundle that “the father of the savala was a hit man and I received threats over the phone by him”. I do not accept that this error was material as it appears to me that in referring to a direct approach the Judge was referring to a physical approach as opposed to a telephone call. The Judge made findings available to her that such threats as there were came from the local council (see [45 and 48]).
Notice of Decision
14. The Judge did not make a material error of law. The decision of Judge Hands shall stand.
Laurence Saffer
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
18 August 2025
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-002621
UI-2025-002622
FtT No: PA/55860/2024, LP/00709/2025
PA/57382/2024, LP/00708/2025
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 4 September 2025
Before
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SAFFER
Between
RM
HG
(Anonymity order made)
Appellants
and
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: Miss Chaudhury of Counsel
For the Respondent: Miss Blackburn a Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
Heard at Phoenix House (Bradford) on 18 August 2025
Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the Appellants are granted anonymity.
No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the Appellants, likely to lead members of the public to identify the Appellants. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.
DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellants, who are citizens of Honduras, appealed under the provisions of the Nationality, Immigration, and Asylum Act 2002 against the Respondent’s decisions dated 21 February 2024 to refuse their protection claim made on 30 January 2023. They now appeal against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge (FtTJ) Hands who dismissed the appeals following a hearing on 8 April 2025. In essence it was asserted that RM faced threats due to exposing corruption within local government, and HG (his daughter) experienced problems through her education and threats as a result of his activity. I will not delineate her claim separately as the grounds do not refer to her and Miss Choudhury conceded that her claim stood and fell with that of RM.
Permission to appeal
2. Permission was granted by FtTJ Dhanji on 13 June 2025 who stated:
“3. The grounds of appeal advanced are as follows:
i. The Judge misdirected himself in law when stating, at paragraph 33 of the Decision, that the First Appellant was “obligated” to seek protection in the first safe country in which he arrived and the findings the Judge made based on that misdirection materially infected the Judge’s conclusions on the First Appellant’s credibility (“Ground 1”);
ii. The Judge failed to take into account the plausibility of the Appellants’ account “against the background materials, and the view of the expert” (“Ground 2”);
iii. The Judge made an error of fact amounting to an error of law when he stated, at paragraph 45 of the Decision, that the First Appellant had never claimed that he had been directly approached by a hitman or a gang member (“Ground 3 ”).
4. In my judgment, Ground 2 identifies an arguable material error of law in the Judge’s decision. Having reviewed the Decision for myself, it is arguable that the Judge failed to have sufficient regard to the expert report of Dr Joseph Wiltberger when making his findings. The only reference to the report I can find in the Decision is a passing reference at paragraph 26. The expert evidence was arguably materially relevant to the Judge’s assessment of the First Appellant’s account given Dr Wiltberger’s opinion that the account the First Appellant had given is consistent with his knowledge of the situation in Honduras.
5. I see less merit in Grounds 1 & 3. However, I do not consider it appropriate to refuse permission on these grounds in light of the guidance at point 7 of the headnote in Rai & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Grounds of Appeal - Limited Grant of Permission) [2025] UKUT 150 (IAC).”
The FtTJ decision
3. FtTJ Hands found:
“26. The first Appellant’s fear of hitmen comes from the fact the Diana Avula, who was the head of human resources while he served as a councillor, was related to one. The Appellant believed that no matter where he lived in Honduras, a hitman would find him and once a hitman has someone as a target, the hitman never forgets. The first Appellant said all the threats he received were from within the local council, he has made no reference to the gang culture as referred to by the expert in his report other than to say they exist throughout Honduras. Both Appellants were certain that all their problems were from the local council and that they had no issue with central government. I believe this is because they were both able to travel to the capital to obtain documents in support of the account they planned to provide in their asylum claim. In my judgement, absent of involvement with gang culture or direct threats from a hitman, the Appellants have established that they face no threat to their lives outside of their local area in Danli, or outside the area governed by the local council with which the first Appellant was involved.
27. The first Appellant has presented documents, all of which are certified in 2022. His marriage took place in 2020. He said he obtained these documents from this Tribunal in his home area before taking them to Central Government to be stamped. He confirmed that the central government had no issue with him as this was the sole domain of the local government in the area within which he lived, worked and served on the council for four years…
29. I am satisfied by my perusal of these documents that the first Appellant was involved in the founding of the university within which he worked until 2019, that he served in local politics from at 2009 until 2012, that he is married, that he has no criminal convictions and that he has mental health issues, for which he received treatment in Honduras and continues to receive treatment here in the United Kingdom.
30. I am not satisfied that he has continued to receive threats after leaving political office, that his name is on the list of any hitman or that he could not continue to live in Danli after January 2023 in the same way he lived there both before and after his period as a local councillor. The first Appellant said he could only live safely over the ten year period by living quietly and not going out but during that period he travelled to Spain and Austria in 2017, then he travelled to and from the United States in 2019 and 2021 and although detained briefly at the airport was able to travel freely thereafter. Finally, he travelled to the United Kingdom in July 2022. He was also able to leave in January 2023 without any hindrance.
…
35. The First Appellant has children from a previous marriage who are residing in Honduras. Other than his son hearing comments about his father and ‘being aware of the situation,’ his son has not received any personal threats and nor have the matters referred to by the first Appellant impacted his life. The first Appellant said his son works from home in Danli, but many people now work from home and there is no information before me that would suggest doing so in Honduras is outside of the norm. His other two children from his first marriage have not had any adverse interest or interference in their lives because of the events referred to by the first Appellant. In my judgement, it is clear that any interest in the first Appellant does not extend to the family he has left behind in Honduras. This casts doubt over the Appellant’s evidence that the family he has brought with him to the United Kingdom faced any threat or risk to their life.
…
43. The Appellants do not claim that they were personally threatened by gang members or a hitman or someone on behalf of a hitman…
44. The family had been living in Honduras for more that a decade since the first Appellant gave up politics. He chose to give up politics and he chose to leave his employment…the Appellants have researched and planned their migration to the United Kingdom for economic reasons, erroneously believing that they could settle here as refugees because of the first Appellant’s political opinion and the imputed political opinion of the second Appellant. I have a duty to look at all the evidence before me and make my decision based on that evidence alone.
45. Looking at all the evidence in the round, I find that these Appellants have not established to the standard of proof required that they are in need of international protection in terms of the Refugee Convention because of their political opinion, imputed or not. Whilst a general reference was made to one of the first Appellant’s council colleagues being related to a hitman, at no point has the first Appellant claimed that he was directly approached by a hitman or a member of any gang. In fact, he has pointed out that all the threats came from within the local council and at no time has he had an issue with the central government.
…
47. In my judgement, the Appellants can return to Honduras and if they can no longer live in Danli because I have reached the wrong decision in respect of the threat to their lives there, they can relocate to the capital city or an area of Honduras where the central government is in control as they have both said there is no issue with the central government.
48. I, therefore, determine that the Appellants’ claims do meet the test that on a balance of probabilities, taking the Appellants’ claim at its highest there is a convention reason and the Appellants fear persecution for that convention reason. However, I do not find that it is reasonably likely that the Appellants would be persecuted for that Convention reason because I do not accept that the rogue state actors they claim to fear are either hitmen or gang members but are bureaucrats in the local government where the first Appellant used to be a member.”
Submissions
4. Miss Blackburn stated that the appeal was opposed despite there not being a Rule 24 notice.
5. Miss Choudhury submitted in relation to Ground 1 that [33] set the theme and has a bearing on the assessment. In relation to Ground 2, the plausibility of the account was not set against the experts evidence as it was only touched upon. In relation to Ground 3 the error was material as a direct threat was referred to.
6. Miss Blackburn submitted in relation to Ground 1 that the Judge was required to consider Section 8. In relation to Ground 2, the Judge refers to the expert at [26] and to the general country situation. There was a general awareness. The Judge does not say that the account is implausible and gave adequate reasons for her conclusions. In relation to Ground 3, the Judge seemed to be referring to no hit man approaching RM in the street. If there was an error is not material as the Judge refers to calls and the vehicle issue.
7. Miss Choudhury responded that in relation to Ground 3, there was no direct approach was not what was said in q50 of the substantive interview.
Discussion
8. In assessing the Grounds, I acknowledge the need for appropriate restraint by interfering with the decision of the FtT Judge bearing in mind its task as a primary fact finder on the evidence before it and the allocation of weight to relevant factors and the overall evaluation of the appeal. Decisions are to be read sensibly and holistically; perfection might be an aspiration but not a necessity and there is no requirement of reasons for reasons. I am concerned with whether the Appellants can identify errors of law which could have had a material effect on the outcome and have been properly raised in these proceedings.
9. In relation to Ground 1, the Judge erred in stating that “someone fleeing their country of nationality in fear for their life is obligated to seek protection in the first safe country in which they arrive” as there is no such obligation. That behaviour can damage their credibility as explained by the Judge at [31-34] by failing to claim asylum in Spain and the Netherlands on route here and when in Austria and the USA on other occasions, by lying on arrival as to the reason for the visit, and by the delay in the claim. The Judge was plainly entitled to find that this behaviour materially affected his credibility but noted that “this is just one of several factors I am taking into account in my overall credibility finding”. Accordingly the incorrect use of the word “obligated” was not material. Indeed this was considered after the primary findings were made in [25-30]. It did not therefore infect the previously made findings but supplemented them. There was therefore no material error of law disclosed in Ground 1.
10. In relation to Ground 2, Dr Joseph l Wiltberger, an academic cultural anthropologist and acknowledged expert on Central America including Honduras considered the papers and reported (3 October 2024) that in his opinion;
“58. [RM] faces a high likelihood of being tortured or killed should he return to Honduras because he was previously targeted with death threats after he revealed corruption among state institutions. Such threats are extremely serious, and as [RM] reports, at least one of the individuals he identified as involved with corrupt activities had familial ties to a dangerous hitman involved with criminal activities. As my report details, there are deep ties between state institutions, actors, and powerful criminal organizations, including drug cartels and gangs, so this kind of tie between a corrupt state actor and a criminal actor is not surprising at all.
59. It is likely that such a hitman, and others who are keen on targeting [RM] because of his activism against state corruption, are entangled with criminal organizations such as Los Cachiros, the Sinaloa cartel, MS-13, and/or Barrio 18, or another powerful group. These are powerful organizations known for their relentless and brutal violence. The Honduran government has not only been unable to stop such organizations, but state officials frequently work with such organizations to be able to facilitate violent retaliation. This dynamic increases the danger that [RM] faces upon returning to Honduras, in addition to the threat of violence by corrupt government officials and other allies such individuals have.
60. As my report details, the National Party had dominant political power in Honduras for many years, and at the time, he was threatened. The party has a track record of deep involvement with such criminal organizations, of severe corruption, and of targeting activists and opponents who stood up to state corruption, violence, and unjust political agendas. [RM] fits this profile, and so it is consistent with my findings and expertise that he would have been targeted by political officials with obligations to this party. [RM]’s opposition to the corruption of the National Party makes for a very high likelihood that he would be tortured or killed should he return to Honduras because he was previously threatened in this political context.
…
62. Safe relocation would be infeasible for [RM] and [HG], in my opinion. Criminal organizations all have a widespread presence in Honduras and keep their targets under close surveillance to be able to follow through on their threats and intentions to kill someone. Because state actors are behind the threats against him, they can utilize their communications and institutional ties with corrupt law enforcement and state officials in other parts of the country to track down [RM] and [HG] no matter where he attempts to relocate.
63. I do not believe that [RM] or his family members can count on state authorities, the justice system, or the police for protection. Reporting threats or a crime can be dangerous since suspicion that the person is reporting on state actors, gang members, or members of a criminal organization is likely to be met with retaliation. As my report explains, in Honduras, police corruption is rampant, and a faction of the police is known to work with criminal organizations. The impunity rate is extremely high, and Honduran citizens express substantial distrust in state authorities. … Honduran law enforcement and the justice system have failed to effectively address criminal violence, and state corruption is rampant across institutions and levels of government, which undermines any such efforts. … the family of current President Xiomara Castro and her ruling party have not been found to be involved in corrupt dealmaking with powerful criminal organizations, a situation that is contributing to instability and undermining the presumption that the government is taking meaningful action to address endemic corruption, criminal organizations. Rather, such corruption and dealmaking suggests that the state is not willing to protect its citizens but is willing to protect powerful criminal organizations who are involved with the government.”
11. The Judge summarised the background evidence in [42];
“I accept that life in Honduras is different from life in the United Kingdom because of the prevalence of gangs and their connections within governments, both local and national. I accept there is widespread corruption and that the transportation of drugs leads to gang warfare with areas in towns and cities being divided into different gang areas as they take control. I accept that the two main gangs, MS13 and Bario 18 have infiltrated the government. The security services and the police. However, the threat this all poses is to the general public in Honduras and the Appellants would have to establish that the threat to them is personal and beyond the everyday threat to the general citizen living their life in Honduras.”
12. It was not submitted that this is an erroneous summary or in conflict with the evidence of Dr Wiltberger. The Judge had plainly read the report as she said at [26] that “he has made no reference to the gang culture as referred to by the expert in his report…”The Judge gave adequate reasons for her conclusion that RM was not reasonably likely to be at risk, namely the ability to move within and in and out of Honduras freely over many years, and the lack of fear of the central government. The expert’s report was based on an assumption that the facts were as claimed. It was the Judge’s function to make those findings which she did. I do not therefore accept that the Judge materially erred in her assessment of the expert evidence.
13. In relation to Ground 3, it is recorded in the answer to question 50 to be found at page 717 of the Upper Tribunal bundle that “the father of the savala was a hit man and I received threats over the phone by him”. I do not accept that this error was material as it appears to me that in referring to a direct approach the Judge was referring to a physical approach as opposed to a telephone call. The Judge made findings available to her that such threats as there were came from the local council (see [45 and 48]).
Notice of Decision
14. The Judge did not make a material error of law. The decision of Judge Hands shall stand.
Laurence Saffer
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
18 August 2025