Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-003064

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/54398/2023
LP/02677/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 31st December 2025

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE COTTON

Between

PS
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE
FOR THE HOME OFFICE
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr A Osman, counsel instructed by Southwark Law Centre
For the Respondent: Ms S LeCointe, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 6 October 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

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

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

DECISION AND REASONS

1. The appellant is a citizen of Sierra Leone. He entered the UK in 2003 and made a number of applications for leave to remain, including on the grounds of his art 8 rights and claiming asylum, the first in 2012. A refusal by the respondent dated 11 June 2022 was appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (FtT) where the judge refused the appeal in a determination dated 14 April 2025. The appellant sought permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal.

2. The appellant was given leave to appeal on two grounds:

a. First. The FtT failed to determine as required whether the Appellant may qualify as a member of a particular social group due to his mental illness;

b. Second. The FtT failed to have proper regard or give anxious scrutiny to the evidence of mistreatment of those with mental illness in Sierra Leone.

3. I heard oral submissions by both parties as well as having the benefit of a skeleton argument for the appellant and a Rule 24 response. I rose briefly at the start of the hearing to allow the respondent’s representative to read the appellant’s skeleton argument. The appellant attended but the Tribunal had previously refused an application for an interpreter as not necessary to achieve fairness for an Error of Law hearing. Mr Osman informed me that no adjustment to proceedings were necessary to accommodate the appellant, but that he may chose to leave the hearing if necessary.

4. In relation to the first ground, the appellant argues that the FtT directed itself in line with DH (Particular Social Group: Mental Health) Afghanistan [2020] UKUT 00223 (IAC) but failed to address whether the appellant, as a person living with mental ill-health, was a member of a Particular Social Group in line with DH. The FtT did not, says the appellant, deal with both aspects of that test because the FtT did not assess whether the appellant may be perceived as being different by the surrounding society and thus have a distinct identity in Seirra Leone.

5. The FtT considers the question of PSG at [23] to [28], reminding themselves of the test in DH, the appellant’s account, and the expert reports in evidence before the FtT. Having, in my judgement, sufficiently reviewed the relevant evidence, the judge at [28] finds that the appellant’s mental health is not an innate unchangeable characteristic. The judge finds that the appellant would not ‘stand out’, in other words would not be perceived as being different. The judge thereby follows the approach in DH.

6. The judge also considers whether the lower level of medical treatment in Sierra Leone available for those with mental ill-health leads to the appellant being a member of a PSG in itself, and concludes that it does not. Displaying the efficiency of expression that the FtT is expected to deliver, I find that the judge does assess whether the appellant’s mental health condition means is a member of a PSG. Even if the judge had erred in the analysis of PSG membership, the judge goes on to conclude that the appellant has not proved he would be subject to persecution as a result of it, therefore any error would not (in my finding) be material.

7. On the second ground of appeal, the respondent’s position is that it is clear that the judge had considered the evidence in the round.

8. I find that the judge makes reference to Dr Conteh’s report and how people with mental ill-health can be mistreated in traditional and faith ‘healing’ centres. The judge also makes reference to Prof Knorr’s evidence on the medical treatment of those suffering with mental illness.

9. I agree with the appellant that the judge does not recount all aspects of the evidence relating to the treatment (rather mis-treatment) of mental health patients in non-clinical settings in Sierra Leone. The appellant accepts that the judge makes reference to relevant evidence but pleads that there is ‘no engagement’ with it.

10. A judge is not expected to recount all the evidence in a case but is expected to show that they have considered the relevant evidence and show sufficient analysis so that a reader of their judgement understands what weight they give to the evidence. In my judgment the FtT has in this case shown that they have considered the evidence in the round, the judge addresses particular parts of the evidence, produces what I find to be a balanced decision, and does show that they have sufficiently engaged with the evidence as a whole.

Notice of Decision

I find that the First-tier Tribunal judge has not erred in law.

The determination of the First-tier Tribunal stands.

D Cotton

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
19 December 2025