Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-002792

First-tier Tribunal No: HU/55707/2023
LH/02430/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 13 October 2025

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PARKES

Between

SHAMIMA AKHTAR
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr P Turner (Counsel)
For the Respondent: Mr B Hulme (Senior Home Office Presenting Officer)

Heard at Field House on 29 September 2025

DECISION AND REASONS

1. The Appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh. The Appellant came to the UK as a student with leave to remain until the end of February 2013 which was extended to January 2015. An application for a further extension was refused in June 2015, further leave was refused as the college’s licence had been revoked. A Judicial Review challenge to a RED.001 notice was unsuccessful. On the 31st of December 2021 the Appellant made a human rights application which was refused on the 21st of April 2023. The Appellant's appeal was heard by Judge Wilding on the 16th of January 2025 and dismissed for the reasons given in the decision of the 23rd of April 2025.

2. Permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal was granted by the Upper Tribunal on a renewed application on the 21st of July 2025. Two grounds were advanced, the first being that the First-tier Tribunal had not properly assessed whether there were very significant obstacles to the Appellant's reintegration into Bangladesh relying on the Appellant's past conduct, not assessing her estrangement from her siblings and having a limited social network and the Appellant's medical issues. It is also argued that the Judge erred in dismissing the appeal under articles 3 and 8 outside the Immigration Rules. Permission was granted on both grounds.

3. The grounds of appeal set out the argument that the Judge placed undue weight on the Appellant's failure to return to Bangladesh, specifically after her parents’ deaths and failed to adopt a forward looking approach and the obstacles to integration. It is argued that the Judge did not properly assess her evidence about estrangement from her siblings and limited social network and did not engage with the test - having a reasonable opportunity to build relationships and integrate.

4. It is also argued that the Judge did not engage with the Appellant's overall medical conditions and had not assessed the Appellant's ability to access appropriate care. It is argued that the Judge relied on a GP’s note of the 16th of November 2022 and failed to consider subsequent evidence regarding the Appellant's suicidal thoughts. Lastly/alternatively the stigma the Appellant would face was relied on.

5. Regarding the position of the Appellant outside the Immigration Rules under articles 3 and 8 it is again argued that the Judge did not assess the totality of the evidence. The Appellant has been in the UK for 14 years, her physical and mental health conditions being severe and ongoing, her friendship and support network in the UK and lack of support in Bangladesh. It is argued that the Judge failed to conduct a holistic assessment of the Appellant's overall circumstances.

6. The Home Office rule 24 notice of the 18th of August 2025 not surprisingly takes a different approach and maintains that the findings made were open to the Judge for the reasons given. The Judge had set out the correct legal test in respect of paragraph 276ADE and Kamara and weaknesses had been found in the report of Dr D’Agnone, a holistic approach had been taken. With regard to the second ground the Judge had considered the correct test in respect of article 3 and AM (Zimbabwe) and had explained why the evidence did not meet the threshold. The assessment at paragraphs 33 to 35 was appropriate. The representatives made submissions in line with their respective cases.

7. The Judge summarised the Appellant's case at paragraphs 4 to 8. In paragraph 6 the aps health conditions were set out including spondylarthritis with regular injections, depression and that she had suffered from suicidal thoughts, her therapy and reference to occupational therapy and high blood pressure. The Judge also summarised her case that she had no family to return to in Bangladesh and her activities in the UK. There was no need for the Judge to set those out later, the discussion that followed was in the context of the case that was put and the supporting evidence.

8. In line with the medical evidence the Judge granted the application for the Appellant to be treated as a vulnerable witness. This again informed the following discussion and did not need to be repeated. In paragraph 11 the Judge stated that the documentation provided had been considered, there is no need for a Judge to set out each and every piece of evidence relied on or considered.

9. Consideration of the Appellant's case started with the Judge addressing article 3, sensibly given the importance of the Appellant's health conditions in the submissions being advanced. It had been acknowledged, realistically, that the evidence might not reach the threshold for article 3 claims, the Judge set out the test at paragraph 13 and the Judge accepted that the Appellant had the medical conditions claimed which had already been summarised and did not need repeating.

10. The question for the Judge was whether the Appellant's medical issues were such that the article 3 threshold was met, it was not necessary to set out each and every part of the evidence submitted. The report of Dr D’Agnone was treated with circumspection for a number of reasons including straying outside areas of the Dr’s expertise.

11. The Judge returned to the medical evidence in paragraph 23 and paragraphs 27 to 32. The Judge is criticised for referring to the report of the 16th of November 2022 but not to subsequent evidence of suicidal thoughts. I was not directed to evidence that related to the Appellant's position at the date of the hearing itself, or the run up to it, that would have had a bearing on the assessment and as noted above the Judge had already referred to this issue.

12. There was no evidence that it was at the time of the hearing an issue, if it was the case then there would have been current evidence on the point. Such issues can be addressed when arrangements for a person’s return are being made and it was not suggested that that could not be undertaken in the Appellant's case.

13. The fact that the Appellant had overstayed following the expiry of her leave to remain was relevant, her presence in the UK without leave to remain reduced the weight that attached to any private life that she may have established. The Judge could hardly have avoided referring to the fact and the decision, read as a whole, does not show that undue weight was placed on that as a feature. The observation that the revocation of her leave led to her depression was justified and there was no explanation for her decision to remain in the UK.

14. The Judge addressed the circumstances the Appellant would face socially on return in paragraph 21 and found that the claim of a lack of support network was overstated. The Appellant's cousin who supported the Appellant in the UK had returned to Bangladesh and the Appellant has siblings. The suggestion that there would be no support for the Appellant was not made out.

15. In terms of accessing mental health support the Judge gave a number of reasons for rejecting the psychiatric report. The Dr’s observations had been based on what the Appellant had said and the Judge had, for sustainable reasons, not found those to be the case. It was for the Judge to assess the Appellant's ability to access the required services. It was acknowledged that her return would be challenging but with the support the judge had found would be available the circumstances would not amount to very significant obstacles.

16. Article 8 outside the Immigration Rules was addressed based on the findings set out in the body of the decision. To have succeeded on this basis the Appellant would have to show very compelling circumstances. There is a difference between being unable to meet the Immigration Rules and being in a situation not contemplated by the Immigration Rules. Where the Appellant did not meet the Immigration Rules, as the Judge was justified in finding, it is difficult to see how her circumstances would then be very compelling.

17. In summary the grounds are a disagreement with the decision that was open to the Judge for the reasons given. The decision had to be read fairly and as a whole. When done so I am satisfied that the Judge’s reasoning was sufficient and did not rely in an inappropriate emphasis on any particular issue or issues.

Notice of Decision

18. The decision of Judge Wilding did not contain any material error of law and stands as the final disposal of this appeal.

Judge Parkes
Judge Parkes

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber)

2nd October 2025