Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: UI-2025-003444
First-tier Tribunal Number: PA/00438/2022

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued

On 10th of October 2025

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WOODCRAFT

Between

AB
(Anonymity order made)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr P Haywood, Counsel
For the Respondent: Ms Lecointe, Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS

Heard at Field House on 1 October 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity.

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant is granted anonymity, and is to be referred to in these proceedings by the initials AB. 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.
The Appellant
1. The appellant is a citizen of Somalia born on 5 December 1983. He entered the United Kingdom on 19 June 2004 and claimed asylum the same day. He appeals against the decision of Judge of the First-tier Tribunal S J Clarke dated 13 May 2025 to dismiss his appeal against a decision of the respondent dated 1 February 2021. That decision in turn had refused the appellant’s further representations made on 3 September 2020 in support of an application for international protection and/or leave to remain under the Human Rights Act.
The Appellant’s Case
2. The appellant’s case was summarised by the judge at [4] of the determination as follows:
“The Appellant’s protection claim is made on the basis that he has a well-founded fear of persecution on return to Somalia on account of his minority clan membership along with mental health problems including his brain injury that he would be at risk of serious harm or exploitation on return there. His claims are made under the 1951 Convention, Article 2, Article 3, and Article 8. The Appellant’s claim is made on the basis that he is vulnerable and has mental health needs and physical ill health. He would be at high risk of deterioration in physical and mental health that would lead to a rapid decline and intense suffering when faced with removal to Somalia (Articles 2 & 3 ECHR).”
3. In support of the appeal the appellant relied on a number of medical reports and documents and expert country conditions reports listed at [11] of the determination.
The Decision at First Instance
4. At [9] the judge indicated that her starting point was an earlier determination of the Tribunal dated 17 May 2005 which had dismissed the appellant’s original appeal against refusal of international protection. It was accepted in the 2005 appeal that the Appellant was a member of a minority clan, the Midgan clan although the Appellant could not speak the dialects of his clan and was not in close contact with members of the clan during his adolescence. What was rejected was the claim by the Appellant that he married someone from the Hawiye clan (a majority clan), they had two children, the appellant’s wife was abducted; his brother was killed; his uncle was killed and two nephews killed. The death of the appellant’s brother was held to be a fabrication designed to bolster the asylum claim.
5. At [12] the judge rejected the conclusions of the medical experts regarding difficulties the appellant might face upon return in part because their reports were based on an acceptance of the appellant’s claim which had been rejected in 2005 and was still not believed. The judge took an adverse view of the appellant’s failure to call two witnesses who on the appellant’s evidence appeared to have contacts in Somalia, see [18]. The appellant was not receiving any treatment and took no medication [33]. The appellant had family in Somalia and a network of friends with whom he was in contact. He could work upon return. He had amassed 18 convictions in the United Kingdom since his arrival. There were no very significant obstacles to his reintegration into Somalia. The judge dismissed the appeal.
The Onward Appeal
6. The appellant appealed against this decision on grounds settled by counsel who had appeared at first instance. After citing extracts from the medical reports to indicate the extent of the appellant’s mental health difficulties and to support the contention that his condition had not improved the grounds concluded:
“[T]he FT failed to give adequate reasons for reaching the conclusion, wholly at odds with that evidence, that the A’s medical conditions have improved such that he could work, house and maintain himself if removed to Somalia.”
7. The First-tier Tribunal granted permission to appeal stating: “The Judge evidently considered the Appellant to not be a witness of truth. The observation is made that the expert’s opinions were predicated on them believing the Appellant, whereas the Judge did not. However, in view of the clearly expressed opinions of the experts, this does not sufficiently answer the Judge’s seeming rejection of the expert evidence. It is arguable that more was required to explain the departure from those opinions. “
8. The respondent filed a rule 24 response to the grant of permission stating that the evidence supported the judge’s findings. The judge was correct to criticise the experts’ reliance upon the appellant’s evidence as if he were a witness of truth. The experts’ conclusions on the inability of the appellant to support himself upon return did not take into account the existence of friends and family of the appellant. The reports did not indicate a deterioration in the appellant’s health indeed his condition had improved as he had stopped drinking.
The Hearing Before Me
9. In consequence of the grant of permission the matter came before me to determine in the first place where there was a material error of law in the decision of the First-tier Tribunal such that it fell to be set aside. If there was then I would make directions on the rehearing of the appeal. If there was not the decision at first instance would stand. The Presenting Officer indicated as a preliminary point that the respondent had not been served with the composite bundle in this case, but she was nevertheless content to proceed with the hearing
10. Counsel for the appellant relied upon his skeleton argument which was not on the court file but was handed in on the day. He argued that the determination was insufficiently reasoned. There was a lot of relevant evidence which had not been properly taken into account. In saying that the appellant could return to work as a shoeshine the judge was looking at the appellant's previous circumstances, but these had since changed as a result of what had happened to the appellant after he had arrived in the United Kingdom.
11. The appellant was in the lowest category of capability 98 to 99% of the population would do better than him. He had a very significant level of impairment. In her report Dr Antonesei, Chartered Clinical Psychologist said the appellant had a limited support network available, she had not said the appellant had no support network. Dr Antonesei acknowledged the respondent's position on the credibility of the appellant's account and that his circumstances were not accepted.
12. The judge was critical of the medical reports because the doctors had taken into account what the appellant had said but the appellant’s very significant level of impairment was not a question of credibility. At [38] the judge said the appellant could return with the right support network. The appellant was a member of a minority clan. Even if the judge was correct that there was support available to the appellant upon return what support would be required needed an appraisal in the light of the medical evidence. Mary Harper a country expert said the Midgan continue to have a low status in Somalia. What was required from the Tribunal was an accurate appraisal of the appellant's needs.
13. At [41] the judge said the appellant would be able to find work but did not take into account the appellant's condition. Since the traumatic brain injury in 2018 the appellant's presentation had changed and the judge had thus not made a sustainable finding. The appellant's accident in 2018 when he had fallen over whilst drunk was extensively documented in the bundle. He had had to have surgery because he suffered a subdural haemorrhage. He suffered from hypotension as a consequence of the brain injury. He displayed symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. This was not just drawn from what the doctor said it was also in the GP notes. For the judge to suggest that the appellant's condition had improved was contrary to the evidence. The appellant was still drinking. It would be possible for the appellant to access hard drugs in Somalia and the country guidance case was sanguine about the availability of mental health provision.
14. Dr Antonesei noted that the appellant had other impairments and the appellant required support. It would be difficult for the appellant upon return. The doctor described the appellant as having support from a couple of family members in the United Kingdom. Even if there was family support in Somalia there needed to be a fact sensitive assessment. There was a possibility of self-harm. There would be difficulties obtaining employment as he had problems caring for himself. The appellant had a cognitive deficit because of the fall he suffered in 2018. His problems were long-standing. It was not possible to infer that the appellant could return to the same circumstances in Somalia that he had before he left the country. There was nothing in the evidence to support the judge's finding that the appellant had improved. The findings would have to be re-made in this case.
15. For the respondent reliance was placed on the rule 24 response (which I have summarised at paragraph 8 above) the decision did not just take medical evidence into account but also referred to the appellant's credibility. The previous appeal determined by judge Denson was Judge Clarke’s starting point. Although there was not a great deal of reasoning in the decision there was reference to the medical evidence in paragraphs 31, 35, 37 and 38. The judge also dealt with the appellant's family ties in Somalia. The judge had referred to the country guidance, but the experts’ reports were tainted by their acceptance that the appellant was a witness of truth when he was not. The appellant had a mother and father to return to, and he could find work. In Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464 it was made clear that the judge was not expected to itemise every document in the case. The authors of the medical reports should have considered the credibility of the witness.
16. In conclusion counsel argued that the position had changed significantly since judge Denson’s determination because of the appellant’s brain injury. It was noted that the respondent accepted that there was not a great deal of reasoning in the determination. The issue was whether the consideration of the evidence was sufficient. Reasons given had to be adequate. The medical reports were from treating consultants and showed that there was a significant debilitating level of cognitive impairment. The appellant's ability to integrate and form relationships was predicated on an ability to function. The appellant had tried his best to give up alcohol but had not succeeded.
Discussion and Findings
17. This is a reasons-based appeal, the appellant argues that the judge has not adequately engaged with or properly assessed the evidence. It is submitted that she has failed to take into account the large amount of evidence provided on the appellant's condition. It does appear from the medical evidence that the appellant suffered an injury in 2018 when he fell whilst under the influence of alcohol. The judge was criticised by the appellant for indicating that the appellant's condition had improved and that there was a support network for the appellant upon return to Somalia.
18. The judge’s criticism of the experts’ reports was that they were predicated on an acceptance of the appellant's account. Whilst it may be correct as counsel argued that the effects of a specific injury to the brain does not require a credibility assessment, the question of whether the appellant has family support upon return does very much require an assessment of the appellant’s credibility. This is particularly so where the appellant has been found to lack credibility by both judge Denson and judge Clarke. The appellant appears to have told the doctors that he has no one in Somalia who can assist him upon return, see [36]. The inconsistency between such a claim and the facts as found by the judge was considered to be a significant point which weighed heavily against the appellant because it undermined the weight to be given to the medical reports in an assessment of the appellant's ability to cope upon return. The doctors evidently proceeded on the assumption that there was little or no assistance to be given to the appellant upon return to Somalia because that was what the appellant had told them. However, that was not correct. In fact, the appellant had as the judge pointed out a considerable degree of support available to him upon return, see [29].
19. The appellant may experience difficulties; the medical evidence is detailed in this respect but that is not sufficient for the appellant to be able to establish that he would face very significant obstacles upon return. The judge referred to the right support network, the doctors have not been able to consider that because they were not told that there was a support network available. Counsel argued that what was required from the judge was an analysis of what care would be required and whether the family could supply it. I remind myself that the burden of proof rests upon the appellant. If he is not truthful about his network of support and thus his medical experts cannot deal with this, he must take the consequences of that, it is not reasonable to criticise the judge in those circumstances, she could only deal with what was in front of her and not speculate.
20. That the appellant would require mental health care upon return to Somalia begs the question whether there is such healthcare available. Although the country guidance case of OA CG [2022] UKUT 00033 was criticised in the hearing before me it is nevertheless binding and it is clear from that decision that provision for mental health care is available. The appellant may or may not have difficulties in accessing such provision entirely on his own but it was not the finding of the judge that the appellant would be in such a position. The judge found that the appellant's family could assist him. The Appellant has sought to conflate two quite separate aspects of the case. The first is the voluminous material on the appellant's injuries the second is whether the appellant would have family support enabling him to cope upon return.
21. There is a suggestion in the medical report of Dr Antonesei that the appellant's extensive alcohol misuse might have detrimentally affected his memory and attention span. The judge received evidence that the appellant had given up alcohol. I was told that the appellant has since resumed his misuse of alcohol. Such self-inflicted damage is not in my view a strong reason for the appellant to remain in the United Kingdom. If he can give up alcohol as he had on the evidence before the judge at first instance then he could do so again. If alcohol misuse might have detrimentally affected the appellant then if the appellant were to make an effort to cease alcohol misuse his condition would improve. That would strengthen his ability to reintegrate upon return.
22. It is apparent from comments in the medical report and cited in counsel’s skeleton argument that the appellant would find it difficult to find housing in Somalia, the doctor has accepted the appellant's account that he has no support network who could assist him. Although the doctor stated she was mindful of the fact that the appellant's original account had been disbelieved and treated as being fabrication she could unfortunately only go on what she was being told even if what she was being told was wrong as the judge decided. Dr Antonesei referred to the appellant having a very limited support network since he arrived in United Kingdom. That was an issue taken against the appellant by the judge who found that the appellant had a support network but was in effect concealing it from the tribunal by not calling witnesses who could give evidence as to the support network available.
23. Dr Galappathie a consultant forensic psychiatrist gave his opinion that removal to Somalia was likely to have a significant adverse impact upon the appellant's mental health but such an analysis was dependent on what the doctor had been told by the appellant about the support network available to the appellant upon return. No satisfactory explanation has been provided why the appellant minimised the level of support which was available to him.
24. The judge was criticised for finding that the appellant could resume work. The medical evidence was that the appellant was likely to have difficulty gaining employment but again that was not a judgement which the doctors were in a position to make because it was not a purely medical matter that could be separated from the concerns over the appellant's general level of credibility. Although there is a considerable amount of medical evidence indicating that the appellant has had a serious injury in 2018 and functions at a lower level than the majority of the population, the crucial issue in the case is not addressed by the medical reports. That issue is whether the appellant has very significant obstacles to his return to Somalia. The case turns on what support the appellant can expect to receive upon return. The judge made a finding which was open to her on the evidence and was carefully explained in the determination.
25. Citing the headnote to OA the judge wrote: “Somali family networks are very extensive and the social ties between different branches of the family are very tight. A returnee with family and diaspora links in this country will be unlikely to be more than a small number of degrees of separation away from establishing contact with a member of their clan, or extended family, in Mogadishu through friends of friends, if not through direct contact. “
26. At [18] of the determination the judge gave more detail why she took an adverse view of the appellant’s claim not to have a support network. She said of two potential witnesses with connections to Somalia:
“However, by not calling them the Appellant has presented two people who were clearly very much in contact with family and neighbours in Mogadishu and discussed [with] them in detail and then shuts down any discussion for this appeal. The Appellant has described at length how he has lived with them over the years; how much a part of his life they have been, and I find it is for convenience sake he does not want to call them to be examined about what I conclude are extensive ties to Somalia including family and friends.”
27. Although the determination in this case is concise the judge has covered the relevant points. Whilst the medical evidence is extensive as the judge herself acknowledged, it centres on the difficulties which the appellant has in the United Kingdom but does not for the reasons which the judge gives in her determination deal adequately with the conditions in Somalia and the network of support the appellant could expect to receive. The judge correctly directed itself in accordance with the country guidance authority of OA which makes clear that family members do offer support and thus by implication that would be available to the appellant as the judge found. It is not necessary for the judge to set out each and every piece of evidence in the case but it is clear from the determination that the judge is aware of the medical evidence and its limitations. Overall, the grounds of onward appeal in this case amount to no more than a disagreement with the findings of the judge. The grounds do not disclose any material error of law and I dismiss the appellant's onward appeal.

Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve the making of an error of law and I uphold the decision to dismiss the Appellant’s appeal
Appellant’s appeal dismissed

Signed this 2nd day of October 2025

……………………………………………….
Judge Woodcraft
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge