Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-003216

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/54062/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

16th October 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HIRST

Between

FB
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Banham, instructed by Sentinel Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms Kerr, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 19 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. The Appellant appeals from the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 12 June 2025 dismissing his appeal on protection grounds.
Background
2. The Appellant is a Turkish national of Kurdish ethnicity. He arrived in the UK on 6 August 2022 and claimed asylum on 11 August 2022. The basis of his claim was his political opinion. He claimed to have been a supporter of the People’s Democratic Party (‘HDP’) in Turkey as a result of which he had been accused by the authorities of being a supporter of the PKK and had been arrested and detained on three occasions.
3. The Appellant’s asylum claim was refused on 1 February 2024 and the Appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal on 12 June 2025.
4. The Appellant was granted permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on 14 July 2025. The Respondent filed a Rule 24 reply on 22 July 2025 contesting the appeal. The appeal came before me at an error of law hearing on 19 September 2025.
The Appellant’s grounds of appeal
5. The Appellant was granted permission to appeal on four grounds:
a. Ground 1: The First-tier Tribunal failed to reach any findings on a core issue, namely whether the Appellant had been a supporter of the HDP party;
b. Ground 2: The reasons given by the First-tier Tribunal for rejecting the Appellant’s account of his past detentions failed to have regard to the fact that the Appellant was not asked to provide further details either in his substantive asylum interview or at the First-tier Tribunal hearing;
c. Ground 3: The First-tier Tribunal had not made any clear finding on the Appellant’s claim that his father had been imprisoned;
d. Ground 4: The First-tier Tribunal failed to have regard to, or assess the Appellant’s claim by reference to, the risk factors set out in IK (Returnees, Records, IFA) Turkey CG [2004] UKIAT 00312.
Discussion and decision
6. The Appellant’s Ground 1 was that the First-tier Tribunal failed to make a finding as to whether the Appellant was a supporter of the HDP party. At paragraphs 65-67 of the decision the First-tier Tribunal stated:
“65. I accept the appellant is of Kurdish ethnicity. I also accept as set out by Ms Panagiotopoulou that the background evidence supports the submission that low level activity can attract the attention of the authorities and with short term detentions and release without charge being common.
66. The appellant has only ever claimed to be a low level supporter of the HDP.
67. I also accept that supporters of the HDP can be targeted as set out in the background evidence.”
7. The Appellant’s asylum claim was made after 28 June 2022 and the provisions of ss31-36 Nationality and Borders Act 2022 applied. The Upper Tribunal has set out in JCK (s32 NABA 2022) [2024] UKUT 00100 the structured and sequential approach which the First-tier Tribunal should follow in such a case.
8. Adopting that approach, the First-tier Tribunal was required to decide whether, on the balance of probabilities, the Appellant had a characteristic which could cause him to fear persecution (s32(2) NABA 2022), namely his political opinion. The First-tier Tribunal did not make an express finding as to whether, on the balance of probabilities, the Appellant held a political opinion capable of causing him to fear persecution. Nor is it clear from the rest of the determination whether the First-tier Tribunal accepted that was the case. Given that the Appellant’s political opinion was the Convention characteristic at the core of his case, the failure to adopt the structured JCK approach and the absence of a finding as to whether s32(2) NABA 2022 was met was a material error in the First-tier Tribunal’s decision.
9. In relation to Ground 2, the Appellant claimed to have been arrested and detained by the Turkish authorities on three occasions (in September 2021, January 2022 and March 2022). He also claimed that his home had been raided and that his father had been arrested in 2011 as a supporter of the PKK, which was an additional factor in the authorities’ adverse interest in the Appellant.
10. The First-tier Tribunal accepted (§69) that the Appellant was not asked in his asylum interview for details of the raid on his house, but noted that the lack of detail as to the raid was raised in the Respondent’s reasons for refusal. At §70, the First-tier Tribunal noted that there had been “a lack of detail from the Appellant in respect of all 3 claimed detentions”. Whilst accepting (§76) that the Appellant’s account was consistent with the background information, the First-tier Tribunal nonetheless considered that the lack of detail cast doubt on the credibility of his claim.
11. The Respondent’s refusal letter did not take issue with the lack of detail about the detentions and the Appellant was not asked to provide details in his asylum interview. Nor was the Appellant was cross-examined about his experiences in detention during the First-tier Tribunal hearing, or asked questions by the judge. Where a matter has not been put in issue between the parties and the appellant’s evidence on that matter is not challenged, but the judge has concerns or considers that further evidence is necessary, it is incumbent on the judge to raise the issue during the hearing. In this case, given the importance of the Appellant’s past experience of detention to the question of risk on return, I consider that the judge erred in not raising the matter with the parties during the hearing or asking clarificatory questions herself, and that that error was material to her rejection of the Appellant’s account.
12. In relation to Ground 3, the First-tier Tribunal did not make any finding as to whether the Appellant’s father’s arrest and imprisonment had taken place, merely noting (at §75) that the Appellant had not been able to provide documentary evidence of it. The arrest of the Appellant’s father as a suspected PKK sympathiser was obviously relevant to the Appellant’s case, not least because he maintained that he was of particular interest to the authorities despite being only a low-level HDP supporter. The Appellant’s account in his witness statement was that he had not been able to provide documentary evidence because no documents relating to the arrest had been provided at the time and the family feared the consequences of requesting documents now. The First-tier Tribunal was not bound to accept the Appellant’s account of his father’s arrest, but it was required to make findings on the issue which went beyond simply noting the lack of corroborating evidence. I consider that the failure to do so was material to the decision.
13. In relation to Ground 4, the Appellant’s grounds of appeal assert that the First-tier Tribunal erred by failing to have regard to “the risk factors set out in IK [2004]” when assessing the risk faced by the Appellant on return. The grant of permission took that to be a reference to IK (Returnees, Records, IFA) Turkey CG [2004] UKIAT 00312. However, IK was not referred to by either party and its relevance to the Appellant’s case is unclear. The Appellant’s skeleton argument did make detailed submissions by reference to IA and Others (Risk – Guidelines – Separatist) [2003] UKIAT 00034, which were recorded in the First-tier Tribunal’s decision at §57. The First-tier Tribunal’s rejection of the Appellant’s claim, which I consider was flawed for the reasons set out above, necessarily led to the conclusion that the risk factors in IA and Ors did not apply. Given my conclusion on the other grounds, it is in the event unnecessary for me to determine Ground 4.
14. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved material errors of law. I therefore set aside the decision.
15. In relation to disposal, I have had regard to Part 3 of the Practice Direction and paragraph 7 oof the Practice Statement and considered both AEB v SSHD [2022] EWCA Civ 1512 and Begum (Remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 00046 (IAC). I consider that the nature and extent of necessary fact finding means that the appeal should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing.

Notice of Decision

The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of a material error of law and is set aside. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing before a different judge.

L Hirst

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

3 October 2025