Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-002819

First-tier Tribunal Nos: PA/57092/2024
LP/05158/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 21 November 2025

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BEN KEITH

Between

SS
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr A Maqsood (Counsel), Lampton Solicitor Advocates
For the Respondent: Ms Isherwood, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 25 September 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant is granted anonymity.

No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the appellant, likely to lead members of the public to identify the appellant. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. This is an appeal against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Maka Of the decision heard on 10 April 2025 and promulgated on 20 April 2025 in which the judge dismissed the appellants appeal.
2. The judge sets out the procedural history in paragraphs [1] through [5]. The appellant and his dependant wife and child are citizens of Nepal he entered the UK on a student visa in 2007 and returned to Nepal in 2013 he then re-entered as a dependent on his spouse his entrepreneurial visa returning to Nepal in 2015 and re-entering the UK again in 2015 in 2016 he applied to Lee for leave to remain on the basis of his family and private life under the 10 year route that was refused then in 2017 he made a human rights application or articles three and eight of the European Convention on human rights this was also refused in 2018 he applied for leave outside the rules which was again refused. In 2019 he applied for a dependent spouse for person with leave to remain which was refused in 2019 he made a family and private life application this was also refused and in 2020 logic judicial review this was also refused then he applied for asylum on 18 May 2022.
3. On 5th March 2024 the respondent refused the application for asylum and associated claims and the appellant lodged an appeal against that finding.
4. The case came before the First-tier Tribunal where the claim was dismissed on protection and human rights grounds.
5. The Upper Tribunal granted permission to appeal on three grounds.
6. There was no rule 24 response before me at the hearing and there was a bundle of 220 pages. I confirmed that I had received the relevant documents.
7. Ground 1: is pleaded as “Error of law by conflating caste and occupation and contaminating credibility assessment thereby”. It is argued on appeal that the judge fell into error by conflating the occupation of the appellant's wife and her cast and that by and that by doing so fell into error of law.
8. Ground 2: it is pleaded as: “Error of law by speculation on the source for funds for business and taking this immaterial factor into account in assessing the claim of being from a lower caste”. It is argued that the judge was wrong to take into account the source of funds in relation to the entrepreneur visa as evidence that the wife is not lower caste.
9. Ground 3: is pleaded as: Error of law in findings on the expert’s qualifications and experience for the timing of when the challenge is raised and for failure to take the material information into account and findings on footnotes. It is argued that the judge was wrong to find that the expert lacked expertise in Nepal and therefore should have been accepted.

Discussion
10. The first thing to note is the clear chronology in this case. It is clear from a reading of the papers that the claim of asylum and protection is a last ditch effort to secure status in the UK having applied for years and been subject to myriad refusals. This is not a case where a particular event may have put the appellant or his wife in danger. On his case he has always been in danger because of his wife’s lower caste. That submission must be contrasted with the continual returns to Nepal and the attempts to gain status.
11. Secondly the legal tests applied have not been clear in the pleadings. As I will discuss further any factual errors by a tribunal need to be so fundamental as to amount to an error of law. In order to assess whether there is an error of law I must look at the decision of the First-tier judge as a whole rather than seek to pick holes in it. Most importantly the assessment is one of risk on return to Nepal. That is the issue that matters. If there is a real risk of persecution (in terms of the refugee convention) or harm in terms of humanitarian and human rights issues then the appellant will succeed. If however, there are errors but they do not impact upon the central assessment of risk then they will not be material. The judge correctly sets out the legal tests at [12] and [13]. In addition the judge addresses each issue in turn.
12. As noted by the judge granting permission, grounds 1 and 2 challenge the assessment of credibility and argue that the judge made errors of fact on ground 1 in eliding caste and occupation and in ground 2 finding that the access to significant funds as a tier 1 entrepreneur.
13. It is also worth noting that the wife has never given evidence in these proceedings or provided a witness statement.
14. In my judgment the criticisms levelled in grounds 1 and 2 are collateral attacks on the assessment of credibility and are without foundation. Even if they are correct the judge makes a clear, unambiguous and telling finding at [21] that there is no risk on return because the appellant is not credible:
“21. I have considered this case carefully. I am satisfied this Appellant is not at risk upon return to Nepal. At the outset I make clear, I do not accept the Appellant’s account of his father and uncle threatening or wanting to harm him. The Appellant said he was connected to his uncle through Facebook. He has 2-3 accounts. He uses other IDs to find out what his uncle was up to. He said in oral evidence his uncle held a key position but did not know what kind of position he was holding. He said he was one of the head in the opposition party. I am satisfied if the Appellant’s uncle was some important political figure as he is making him out to be, the Appellant would have been able to provide me the Facebook excerpts as evidence of his uncle’s activities and widespread connections.”
15. The judge goes on to explain why they found the appellant to not be credible at [22]-[32] which in summary state:
(a) The Appellant did not produce any photos with his wife or evidence of threatening calls, and his wife did not attend the hearing [22]. Although corroboration is not generally required, the judge considered it reasonable to expect some supporting material in this case.
(b) The Appellant’s claim that he did not know his wife’s father’s occupation was found implausible, particularly given the length of their relationship and the presence of a letter from his mother-in-law in the bundle [23].
(c) The expert report by Dr Wali was given little weight [24]. It lacked interviews with the Appellant or his wife and failed to reconcile the Appellant’s evidence with the report’s claims about caste. The wife’s Tier 1 Entrepreneur visa and business background contradicted the portrayal of her as a lower caste individual subject to societal rejection.
(d) Further procedural deficiencies were noted in the report, including the absence of a letter of instruction and reliance on incomplete documentation [25]. The expert was not provided with all witness statements or interviews, and inconsistencies in the Appellant’s timeline of threats were not addressed.
(e) The judge accepted the presenting officer’s submission that Dr Wali lacked relevant expertise on Nepal and inter-caste issues [26]. The report did not reference any visits to Nepal or prior work on the subject. It also lacked proper referencing and a complete bibliography, making verification impossible [27].
(f) The Appellant’s further witness statement was criticised for being drafted in legal language not reflective of his own voice, including phrases such as “this objection is denied” and “conclusively… demonstrates” [28].
(g) The judge found discrepancies in the Appellant’s timeline of threats and travel. Despite claiming threats began in 2012, he returned to Nepal twice without incident, undermining his account [29].
(h) The absence of a witness statement from his wife and the self-serving nature of her mother’s letter further weakened the claim [30].
(i) The timing of the asylum claim, made in 2022 after other immigration routes had failed, was viewed as a strategy to prolong his stay rather than a genuine claim of fear [31].
(j) The judge did not accept that the Appellant had suffered past persecution, that his family rejected his inter-caste marriage, or that any threats had been made [32].
16. Therefore there is a comprehensive assessment of the appellant’s credibility. The submissions in grounds 1 and 2 that conflating caste and occupation or even income misses the point. The judge did not need to make any assessment of the caste – the fact that the appellant lied about the threats to him and provided no supporting evidence means even if those facts were errors, they are not material as the appellant lied about the threats. Without a risk of persecution or threats the appeal was doomed to fail. There is therefore no merit in ground 1 or ground 2.
17. In relation to the expert report and ground 3. I can see from some of the material before me that the expert did have some expertise in Nepal and the judge was arguably wrong about that issue. But the judge was rightly critical of the way the report was prepared and referenced and placed little weight on it. However, the report was irrelevant as once the judge had assessed the appellant as not credible it mattered not. There was no risk.
18. For completeness I have considered Mr Wadi’s report. It is in my judgment generic and does not assist the appellant at its highest it states at para 37 on the assumption that the account is true that (my emphasis):
37. According to social tradition, Mr Shrestha has committed an act that transgresses Nepalese social and cultural tradition. Inter-caste marriages defy and erode the biradari system (Charsley 2013, p. 75). Thus, Nepalese society has distinct social roles within the social make-up of the country. The most pertinent factor of such roles, for our purposes here, is the intrinsic obedience to social custom and tradition, which must manifest in all spheres of life. In such circumstances, individuals who disobey social custom are at risk of attracting social disapproval. In a country that values and prioritises notions of ‘honour’ and ‘social status’, and where such values are manifested through the character and behaviour of its individuals, any person failing to honour such normative expectations will be subject to social strife and alienation.
19. The highest is therefore “social disapproval” and as noted by the judge the appellant was able to return to Nepal on several occasions with no issues. At [42] the expert states:
42. Thus, if returned to Nepal, Mr Shrestha would face stigmatisation in any urban setting. In some extreme circumstances, he may be subjected to honour-based violence. This is seen as the only way that the wider family can absolve itself from negative social stigma.
20. Then at [48]-[50]
48. This means Mr Shrestha may be targeted and subjected to violence for being in an inter-caste relationship. According to the WSO, inter-caste couples are subject to violence, as they state: “the threat of violence would exist, in most cases, from the families involved”.(WSO, 2020).
49. It has been reported by Human Rights Watch, khap panchayats (unofficial village councils) across Nepal, may issue edicts forbidding inter-religious relationships (HRW, 2022). Most inter-caste relationships face adverse reactions from family members. Thus, Mr Shrestha is at risk if he is forced to relocate to Nepal.
50. Hard News, a New Delhi-based news magazine, stated that honour crimes, including those against inter-faith couples, range from “murders passed off as suicides, to pre-meditated, long-drawn public humiliation and social boycott” (Hard News, 22.01.2012).
21. The expert concludes in very strong terms that the appellant will face insurmountable obstacles if returned to Nepal. At [86] he states:
86. If Mr Shrestha were forced to relocate to Nepal, then he will face a host of insurmountable obstacles. The fact Mr Shrestha entered an inter-caste relationship will be the subject of profound stigma and exclusion in everyday life. This will not only affect his ability to secure accommodation and employment, but also the ability to make new friends and acquaintances. Consequently, he will undoubtedly struggle to socially integrate, as a caste violator, especially if he is pursued by family and the Shrestha community.
22. However, this is not subject to challenge by the appellant nor are the findings on internal relocation. The expert goes onto explain that the appellant if returned to Nepal will because of his Westernisation “struggle to survive”.
23. The expert is very strong in several conclusions but in their final assessment states:
97. Based on the information provided to me, I can conclude Mr SS will struggle to be relocated to Nepal, as he faces the risk of mistreatment and violence for engaging in an inter-caste marriage, which defies Nepalese culture and religion. As a result, it is highly likely if returned to Nepal that Mr SS may be subjected to discrimination and violence, especially from his family and the wider community. For this reason, I do believe that Mr SS would be at serious risk from violence and discrimination. Should Mr SS return to Nepal without social and family support in place from the state or family, then, given his status (as a caste violator), it is highly likely that he will face severe mistreatment, poverty, and everyday harassment.
98. In addition, based on the information provided to me, I can conclude Mr SS is at risk if returned to Nepal because of the threat posed by wider society, as a caste violator with no family support. For this reason, I do believe that Mr SS would be at serious risk from violence.
24. In my judgment the First-tier tribunal was entitled to place little weight on the report because what mattered was whether there was in fact any threat. The judge assessed there was no threat, that the appellant was incredible and dismissed the appeal. I accept that the expert has some expertise in Nepal but the report is not cogent or coherent and cannot displace the assessment of credibility. Therefore there is no merit in ground 3.
25. The judge summed up the issue with the credibility of the case at [31]:
31. In cross-examination, it was suggested to the Appellant, he only claimed asylum after all else failed. Counsel suggested it was not unreasonable for the Appellant to pursue his long residence given he would have got ILR, had he succeeded. Whilst that may have been the case, the fact is the Appellant is now saying his life is at risk based upon his relationship, yet this was not an issue for him since entering the UK in 2007 until he made his asylum claim in 2022. I am satisfied this is nothing, but a time extension exercise designed to enable the Appellant to stay here for longer. I note he made a human rights application in 2017. If he genuinely feared for his life based on his relationship, I do not accept he would delay claiming asylum (or not mention his problems in 2017 when he relied on Article 3 ECHR) until everything else failed, being some 15 years after arriving in the UK and after pursuing every other type of application, apart from seeking asylum. This is not the hallmark of someone fearing for their life.
32. For all these reasons, I am satisfied this Appellant is not at risk upon return to Nepal. I do not accept he has suffered any past persecution, and I do not accept his own family rejected his inter-caste relationship or marriage. I do not accept the threats allegedly made to him or his wife and her family.
26. There is nothing in the judgment that amounts to a material error of law. I therefore dismissed the appeal.

Notice of Decision

1. There is no error of law.
2. The appeal is dismissed.

Ben Keith

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

25 September 2025