Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-003390
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/53689/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 10th March 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LODATO
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE COLE

Between
MAK
(ANONYMITY ORDERED)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Unrepresented
For the Respondent: Mr McVeety, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Manchester Civil Justice Centre on 12 January 2026

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
Introduction and Background
1. We have decided to maintain the anonymity order originally made in these proceedings by the First-tier Tribunal (the ‘FtT’) because the underlying claim involves international protection issues in that the appellant claims to fear persecution or serious harm on return to Bangladesh. In reaching this decision, we are mindful of the fundamental principle of open justice, but are satisfied, taking the appellant’s case at its highest for these purposes, that the potential grave risks outweigh the rights of the public to know of his identity.
2. The appellant appeals with permission against the decision, dated 20 May 2025, of a judge of the First-tier Tribunal Judge (‘the judge’) to dismiss the appeal on international protection and human rights grounds.
3. In the FtT, the appellant advanced an international protection claim on the basis that, as a medically trained member of the Awami League’s affiliated organisations—initially the Bangladesh Chhatra League during his studies, and later the Awami Schechha Shebok League as an organisational secretary—he came under threat from his own party after treating injured individuals from opposition groups. This led to his expulsion and, he claimed, a series of attacks on his medical practice, and later his family home. He maintained that these events, coupled with his asserted political profile and the subsequent change in the political landscape in Bangladesh, gave rise to a well‑founded fear of persecution from both Awami League affiliates and opposition actors were he to return.
Appeal to the Upper Tribunal
4. The appellant applied for permission to appeal in reliance on four discrete challenges to particular paragraphs of the challenged decisions. Only two of those challenges attracted permission to be argued. In a decision dated 13 September 2025, Judge Ruddick granted permission providing the following reasons for doing so:
The FTT failed to engage with his photographic evidence that showed him in the company of “various high-profile individuals”. This is arguable. The FTT did list the photographs at [25] but arguably failed to consider the detailed captions underneath each photo or to consider the photos in the round.
The FTT failed to take into account the country context/country evidence before it regarding the structure of the Awami League and its affiliate parties when finding a contradiction in the appellant’s account; this may be just arguable, although it is not entirely clear what the inconsistency is that the FTT is referring to at [28]. It may be about the way in which the appellant described what “his party” was (either the ASSL or the Awami League), but it may be about an inconsistency in the timeline, in which case the structure of the Awami League and its affiliates would be irrelevant;
5. The appellant is unrepresented and did not attend the hearing. After we checked that the notice of hearing was properly issued to him at his last known postal address and the respondent confirmed that this matched the address they held on their records, we decided that all signs pointed to the appellant having been properly notified of the hearing and that he had chosen not to attend. We were satisfied that it was firmly in the interests of fairness and justice to proceed in the circumstances as an adjournment appeared to be likely to produce the very same result. We proceeded to hear oral submissions from Mr McVeety who resisted the appeal. We address any submissions of significance in the discussion section below.
Discussion
6. The gravamen of the appellant’s challenge to paragraph [25] of the decision is that the judge did not adequately assess photographic evidence, and their annotations, which vividly illustrated that his political profile went far beyond the low-level political activism found against him. In his grounds of appeal, the appellant cited a non-existent authority in support of the proposition that a judge is bound to consider important evidence and that photographic evidence may fall into this category when it goes to credibility, as the images here did. While the authority relied upon in support of this proposition does not exist – certainly under the name of the case and the citation provided in the grounds – we have no difficulty in accepting the broad proposition that critical evidence in support of an appellant’s case must be considered by a judge deciding their appeal (for a recent example, see AM & Another v SSHD [2026] EWCA Civ 159, per May LJ, at [29] and [31]). Equally, it is clear to us that the photographic evidence relied upon, which we have considered for ourselves, was plainly an important part of the appellant’s factual case that he moved in senior circles within the Awami League and its affiliate groups. This relationship within senior echelons of the political party and its affiliates was undoubtedly an important part of his overall narrative because it tended to explain why he claimed to be at risk from both the Awami League for medically treating those opposed to their political cause, and the opponents of the Awami League now that they have been ousted from power. All of that being said, to assess whether this plainly important evidence was considered, we must look to the judge’s reasons. It is only if the analysis betrays a judicial failure to consider this evidence that it could be found that the evidence was left out of account. When considering the judge’s reasons, we must be guided by the authorities as to how they should be read with due care and fairness.
7. At [13]-[14] of the judgment of Brook LJ in R (Iran) & Others v SSHD [2005] EWCA Civ 982, it was emphasised that reasons must be sufficiently detailed to show the principles on which a decision was made and why the ultimate decision was reached. Reasons need not be elaborate nor is it necessary to address each and every matter which might have had a bearing on the overall decision if those which were material to the reasoning are articulated. In DPP Law Ltd v Paul Greenberg [2021] EWCA Civ 672, the Court of Appeal, in the context of employment proceedings, considered adequacy of reasoning as an error of law. Popplewell LJ, stressed, at [57] the need to consider judicial reasons fairly and as a whole without being hypercritical. Appellate restraint is required to read reasons benevolently. “Simple, clear and concise” reasoning was to be encouraged to enable to parties to broadly understand why they had won or lost. Further, it should not be assumed that an element of the evidence which was not expressly discussed was left out of account. While these observations were made in the context of employment proceedings, they are of relevance in the immigration and asylum sphere because this is also a jurisdiction in which decisions are made by expert tribunals attenuated by the need to give appeals anxious scrutiny. 
8. The judge addressed the photographic evidence at [25] in the following way:
[25] The photographs he has produced that claim to show him with various people connected to the Awami League do not greatly assist in defining his political role. Many merely show him standing with others, but not in any official capacity or involved in any political activity (HB page 56, 61, 62, 64, 65); him at a book fair (HB page 58); at a demonstration in 2018 when he accepts he was a member and not actively involved with the party (HB page 59 & 60, 71); walking alongside a car, that does not show who is in it or the event (HB page 66, 68). Those that show him at what could be described as an event or meeting are either not dated (HB page 63) or just a year is given “2021” and not a specific date (HB page 67), or of him taking part in “a rally on the way to a Chatra League meeting in 2021”, so when he had no specific role and was just a member of the party (HB page 69). At a meeting he claims he is giving a speech at, dated only as 2022, there is no translation showing what the banner says, so little weight can be attached to it (HB page 73). It follows therefore that the photographs produced do little to assist in establishing the role the appellant had within the ASSL.
9. The first point to note from the above extract, is that it cannot be sensibly suggested that the judge did not look at the photographs provided. He plainly did because he could not have included the details above without doing so. Having looked at the photographs for ourselves, the summary above is certainly consistent with what we saw. It is also fair to say that the judge might have said more about these photographs and their annotations. Perhaps the most striking example is the judge’s rather colourless description of the appellant walking alongside a car at what he found to be an inadequately described event. However, the picture itself shows more. The appellant can be seen to be right next to a car covered in confetti with two men standing up through a sunroof communicating with members of a crowd surrounding the car as it processes through. In the annotation under the photo, the appellant stated, “Photo taken with Advocate Abu Zafor president of Awami League on the way to join Awami League meeting on 2021”.
10. Of the 18 photographs provided by the applicant, several are said, in the annotations, to show the aftermath of the attacks on his premises with damage to shutters and overturned furniture. Further photographs show the appellant shoulder-to-shoulder with people described in the annotations to be senior figures such as “Mr Muntasirul Islam of Awami League senior members in Habiganj Shadar Upazila chairman” [p.221 of the error of law bundle], “My Advocate Mr Mahbub Ali member of parliament habiganj - 4 and state minister of Civil Aviation” [p.228], “Mr Shafiqul Alam of Organising Secretary of Bangladesh Awami League on 2021” [p.229], “President and Secretary of Chhatra League, Mr Manik Sarkar and Monju Chowdhury from Chunarughat Chathro League” [p.232] and “Mr Abu Jahir (MP)” [p.234]. A further picture stands out. At page 238 of the error of law bundle, the appellant can be seen to be holding a microphone stood at the end of what appears to be a panel sitting in front of a banner and at a garlanded table. The judge attached little weight to this picture because the banner was not translated.
11. To fairly assess whether the judge lawfully considered the photographic evidence and the appellant’s accompanying commentary, we must exercise caution not to extract passages such as paragraph [25] and assess them in a vacuum. The judicial analysis must be considered in its proper context. To that end, there are other parts of the judge’s reasoning which fall to be considered. Before turning to these specific paragraphs, we note that this was a detailed and comprehensive analysis of the appellant’s overall claim. The decision runs to some 49 paragraphs over 14 pages. The judge specifically addressed issues ranging from the credibility of the appellant’s claim to have worked in medical practice falling short of working as a doctor (the appellant’s broad account was accepted) [16-17], the credibility of the appellant’s stated reasons for travelling to the UK to study [18-23 & 39-40], the lack of clarity in relation to his expulsion from his chosen political party [27-28], the credibility of the attacks on his practice [29], his ability to leave Bangladesh using his own passport [33], the reliability of supporting documentation [34-38] and whether his political profile attracted adverse attention so as to cause him fear [41-44].
12. As alluded to above, before coming to a conclusion on whether paragraph [25] disclosed a lawfully inadequate consideration of the photographic evidence and their annotations, it is important to note other relevant paragraphs:
[9] I confirm that whether or not specifically identified and addressed herein, I have carefully considered all the evidence and submissions together, in the round, in an overall assessment before reaching any of my findings of fact and notwithstanding the order in which issues are addressed below.
[15] Considering the credibility of the appellant’s claim I note what the respondent has accepted, namely that the appellant was a medical worker and member of the ASSL, which has some significance. […]
[24] The appellant’s role within his political party in Bangladesh The Refusal letter states that there is a lack of detail regarding the appellant’s claimed role as an Organisation Secretary or that any role he had carried significant influence and would create a political profile in Bangladesh. He has described being a member of the Chatro League whilst a student, this being the student wing of the Awami League. According to his documents and evidence he completed his studies in 2021. He claims in his witness statement that he then “transitioned into the Awami Swechchasebak League (ASL) in 2021” (AB page 17 para 8). In his SEF interview when asked to describe his political roles he said that “Chatro league I was just a member, in ASSL I was an organisational secretary” Q31. When asked to elaborate on the role he said “follow the parties directions and help establish what they want” Q32, promoting the party by telling people how good the party are and “if they were big events help organise them and follow the direction of the MPs and leaders” Q33. He described that his role was “for the sub district” Q36. He has given some additional information in his witness statement in relation to his role describing himself as the organising secretary for the Chunarughat Metropolitan unit of the ASL, the volunteer wing of the Awami league (AB page 17 para6). He elaborates a lot more stating that he helped to organise election rallies, coordinated volunteers, spreading party messages and promoting local candidates during elections (para 8), implying a far more prominent role. Given my credibility findings, I do not find that the appellant has adequately addressed the concerns raised in the refusal letter or provided any evidence to support that his role was anything other than a member.
[28] In his SEF he said he joined the ASSL in March 2022 (HB page 307 Q29) and later that he was told he could not treat members of other parties “from March 2022” (HB page 309 Q39). He claimed that “leaders and members of my party…told the Awami League and Chatro league what I was doing” Q41. This contradicts the information on the photo that claims “my own party members attacked and vandalized my chamber as I was expulsion by the Awami League on December 2021” (HB page 57). There is a clear contradiction here that has not been explained. As such, and given my overall credibility findings I do not place any reliance on the document claiming to be his expulsion from party and find that this has been produced to bolster his asylum claim.
[29] The credibility of the account that he and his practice were attacked As mentioned above, the appellant has produced photographs said to show the damage to his chambers following the attack which states that this was “as I was expulsion by the Awami League on December 2021” (HB page 57, 72). That contradicts the expulsion order that is dated in June 2022. I struggle see why there would be such a delay between the attack, if in 2021 and expulsion and find that the disparity in dates affects my assessment of the credibility of the account. I also note that there is no evidence to link the picture taken, said to be of is practice, with the appellant or that it confirms this was the premises from which he practiced. I attach little weight to the photograph. It also contradicts the later photo said to be of the appellant with Mr Rahat, former president of Chathro League taken in 2022, after the claimed assault (HB page 61). None of the photos in the hearing bundle give specific dates they say the photo was taken “on” but just give a year rather than a day or month which is far from helpful.
[30] The appellant has not been consistent in relation to when his premises were attacked. In his SEF he gave the date of this attack as being the week after he was expelled from the party on the 20th June 2022 (HB page 310 Q43). After which he claimed he did not repoen [sic] his practice. That is at odds with the photograph that claims his practice was vandalised in December 2021 (HB page 57).
13. There are a number of points to be drawn from these parts of the decision which fall to be considered in tandem with paragraph [25]. Firstly, it can be seen that the judge has explained in terms that he has considered the overall evidential picture even if he has not expressly commented on every individual feature. This approach accords with the statements of principle recorded at our paragraph [7] above. The judge’s assertion that he has considered all of the evidence sits comfortably with the comprehensive and extensive analysis of the evidence produced by the appellant in support of his appeal. Secondly, it would be wrong to take paragraph [25] in isolation and hastily conclude that the photographs and their annotations were not meaningfully considered because more could have been said about them at that point of the decision. The fallacy of such an approach is revealed by reading paragraphs [28] to [30] where the judge has expressly grappled with some of the annotations and found that they yielded inconsistencies which were not adequately explained. On no sensible analysis can it be said that the judge had glossed over the photographs or what the appellant said about them. Other judges might well have arrived at different conclusions about what those photographs show and what the appellant said about them in his annotations. However, our concern is not whether other judges might have arrived at different conclusions, but whether the conclusions reached by this judge were lawful. We are entirely satisfied that they are. The summary of what the photographs show, at [25], must be seen in their proper context where the judge expressed serious reservations about the truthfulness of some of the appellant claims of the extent of his political activities. The photographs were not the only evidence going to this issue. The judge was entitled to point to gaps in what the photographs showed and take this together with his other conclusions on this issue. That is the very nature of considering evidence in the round, as opposed to what we were asked to do here which was to find flaws in a specific paragraph shorn of its context.
14. The judge accepted that the appellant had been involved in supporting the Awami League political cause in Bangladesh. The real questions were whether political actors had targeted him before he departed and whether he was sufficiently senior that he would be at risk on return. The judge explained why he found against the appellant on these matters in fulsome terms. We are unable to accept that the judge did not consider important evidence in the shape of the photographs and their annotations. His perfectly adequate and lawful reasons show that he did and arrived at conclusions he was entitled to come to in law.
15. We can deal with the second ground of appeal more succinctly than the first. This is a challenge to paragraph [28] (copied above) of the judge’s decision. We repeat the principled observations made above about the dangers of assessing a small part of a larger whole. The appellant’s challenge to this part of the judge’s reasons hinge on a suggested misunderstanding of the web of politically affiliated groups which spring from the Awami League centre. We are not satisfied that the judge misunderstood this structure. He referred on multiple occasions to the Awami League and its affiliate groups. When the judge referred to a contradiction at [28], he was plainly discussing the appellant’s use of the word “my” to talk about an attack by members of a political party. The judge was entitled to note some tension in this use of language because the appellant appeared to refer to “my” party as a group other than the Awami League and the Chatro League while at other times referring to “my” being the very same parties or groups which attacked his premises. In any event, we have little hesitation in concluding that this element of the decision was only a small part of a much broader analysis. If there was an error in the judge’s assessment in this regard, it would not have had a material bearing on the overall decision, or ultimate outcome.
16. For all of these reasons, we are not persuaded that the decision involved a material error of law and we dismiss the appeal.

Notice of Decision
The judge’s decision did not involve a material error of law and we dismiss the appeal.

P Lodato

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

9 March 2026