Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-003414

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/57534/2023
LE/01320/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 13 October 2025

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LOKE

Between

SK
[ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE]
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms A Patyna, Counsel instructed by Irvine Thanvi Natas Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms R Tariq, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on Tuesday 30 September 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the Appellant (HMS) 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

BACKGROUND

1. The Appellant appeals against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Beach dated 27 June 2025 (“the Decision”) dismissing the Appellant’s appeal against the Respondent’s decision dated 9 September 2023 refusing the Appellant’s protection and human rights claims.

2. The Appellant appeals the Decision on one ground, namely that the Judge had failed to make any or any adequate findings on the evidence of SH, a witness in the case who had attested to having a sexual relationship with the Appellant.

3. Permission to appeal was granted by Judge Beach herself on 29 July 2025 stating it was arguable that she had not given clear and adequate reasons for rejecting the evidence of SH.

4. I had before me a bundle running to 300 pages (pdf) ([B/xx]) containing the documents relevant to the appeal before us, and the Appellant’s and Respondent’s bundles before the First-tier Tribunal. There was also a Rule 24 Reply from the Respondent.

5. Having heard from both representatives I indicated I would reserve my decision and provide that in writing, which I now turn to do.

DISCUSSION

6. At paragraph 36, the Judge referred to the witnesses who gave evidence on behalf of the Appellant, stating:

The appellant did have two witnesses who attended to speak on his behalf. On the fact of it, there is no reason why those two witnesses would have anything to gain by not being open and honest in their evidence. However, it is always possible that members of a friendship group or community may provide incorrect evidence in a misguided attempt to assist a friend particularly if they believe him to be at risk in Pakistan.

7. It was submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the Judge failed to give a reasoned finding as to whether she accepted the evidence of SH, which potentially would have been determinative of the appeal. In oral submissions Ms Patyna also pointed to the supportive photographs that had been before the Judge. Ms Patyna submitted that having said that there had been no reason for SH to have been otherwise than open and honest, the Judge then failed to give reasons for rejecting credibility. Ms Patyna submitted that the comment by the Judge, that a friend or member of the community may provide incorrect evidence did not apply to SH, who was not a friend or member of the community. This comment in any event did not amount to a proper credibility finding.

8. I have considered these submissions with care. The submissions are not without merit. The Judge did not provide a clear adverse credibility finding on the evidence of SH. That said, paragraph 36 must be looked at in the context of the determination as a whole. In addition to the comments made in paragraph 36, the Judge made the following findings:

a) At paragraphs 26-30 the Judge noted the Appellant’s evidence in his screening and asylum interviews, which were not consistent.
b) At paragraphs 31-34 the Judge summarised the documentary evidence which also indicated discrepancies in his account.
c) At paragraph 35 the Judge noted that there were inconsistencies in the evidence which caused her ‘considerable concern’. This included evidence regarding when he informed his family he was gay, and regarding his relationship with AL.
d) At para 39 the Judge noted that the Appellant had completed omitted mentioning receiving a threat from his maternal in August 2021 until his appeal statement. At para 40 the Judge further noted significant inconsistencies and omissions with respect of the threats he had received.
e) At para 42 the Judge outlines the differences between the evidence the Appellant and AL regarding the nature of their relationship.

9. The Judge had considered all the evidence in the case, of which the evidence of SH was but a part. With respect of the other evidence, the Judge made cogent and reasoned adverse findings. These findings rested on critical issues in the various accounts given by the Appellant himself, and differences between the accounts given by the Appellant and AL who gave evidence of a similar nature as SH.

10. Furthermore, the Judge evidently did take the evidence of SH into account, in that she referenced it at paragraph 36, and fairly noted that there appeared to be no reason on the face of it, why the witnesses would not have given honest evidence. However, looking at the determination as a whole, the Judge balanced this against the other difficulties the Judge found in the Appellant’s case.

11. At paragraph 45 the Judge stated that taking account of all the evidence she was not satisfied that the Appellant was gay. She made a firm and determinative finding that the Appellant had constructed an account from June 2021 to enable him to stay in the United Kingdom. The Judge opined again, that perhaps the other witnesses truly believed the Appellant was gay, however her reasons for dismissing the appeal were that the inconsistencies in the Appellant’s account were too significant for her to accept that he was indeed gay on the lower standard.

12. Ideally the Judge could have expressed the view that the inconsistencies in the other evidence in the case were outweighed the evidence given by SH, however looking at paragraph 36 in the context of the other findings, this is sufficiently apparent upon reading the determination.

13. Any error the Judge may have made in failing to make a definitive conclusion on the evidence of SH was not material. The Judge plainly had regard to all the oral evidence given in the case and she made clear and cogent findings on the evidence as a whole. There was no error of law in the Judge’s Decision.

CONCLUSION

14. For the reasons set out above, the Decision does not contain an error of law. I dismiss this appeal and uphold the Judge’s decision dismissing the Appellant’s asylum appeal.

NOTICE OF DECISION

The Appellant’s appeal is dismissed. The decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Beach dismissing the Appellant’s appeal stands.

S Y Loke
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Loke
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

3 October 2025