Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-003563

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/02983/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 6th January 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GIBBS

Between

WA
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr. Ahmed, Counsel instructed by Janjua and Associates Ltd
For the Respondent: Ms. McKenzie, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 12 November 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, and any family member 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. This is an appeal brought by appellant against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Gould (the Judge) to refuse his appeal against a decision made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department refusing his protection and human rights claim.

Background

2. The appellant is a citizen of Pakistan. His claim is that as a gay man he will be at risk of serious harm in Pakistan. The respondent did not accept the appellant’s sexuality. The Judge also rejected the credibility of his claim.

Grounds of Appeal

3. The Grounds of Appeal are as follows:

i) The Judge failed to correctly apply the test in HJ (Iran) v SSHD[2010] UKSC 31;

ii) The Judge erred in their approach to the supporting evidence adduced by the appellant;

iii) The Judge failed to consider “Cultural, psychological and linguistic factors, including trauma, stigma and nervousness during interviews on sensitive matters” when assessing the explanations given by the appellant in response to credibility issues;

iv) The Judge made a number of irrational findings;

v) The Judge erred by failing to consider the issues of risk on return and internal relocation;

vi) The Judge failed to give adequate reasons for material findings.

Grant of Permission

4. First-tier Tribunal Judge Dhanji granted permission to appeal in a decision dated 24 July 2025. In the grant of permission Judge Dhanji found that grounds 2 and 6 identify arguable material errors of law. He did not however limit the grant of permission.

5. Following the grant of permission the respondent filed a rule 24 response to the appeal.

6. At the error of law hearing, I heard oral submissions from both parties. I address any submissions of significance in the discussion section below.

Discussion

7. I asked the parties to focus on ground 6 (failure to give adequate reasons for material findings) which was of most concern to me. Ms. MckKenzie relied on paragraphs [23-30] in the decision. She said that the Judge’s reasons were contained therein and that these were sufficiently detailed. Mr. Ahmed submitted that there was a lack of “why” in the reasons given by the judge for rejecting the appellant’s credibility.

8. I remind myself of the need for appropriate judicial restraint before interfering with a decision of the First-tier Tribunal, particularly where the fact-finding Judge has considered evidence from a variety of sources and has undertaken an evaluation of it, set in the applicable legal framework. I also remind myself that no decision will be perfect, that such decisions must be read holistically and sensibly, and that there is no requirement to give reasons for reasons.
9. However, having considered the written and oral evidence before me I am satisfied that the Judge did fail to give adequate reasons for material findings which amounts to a material error of law.

10. In considering the credibility of the appellant’s sexuality the Judge found [29]:

“Central to the Appellant’s claim is the point at which he realised he was gay and in answer to a clear question in SI at Q.4.3 he said in 2022. The Appellant said he had later read the interview and realised the error as he had not understood the question and what he meant to say was when he realised he was gay he was 15 or 16 and thereafter his solicitor had corresponded with the Respondent to correct this error, however looking at the interview overall the questions were clear as were the answers and at the close of the interview the Appellant said he had understood the questions and there was nothing he would like to add or change to his responses.”

11. I find, in agreement with Mr. Ahmed’s submissions, that this paragraph fails to provide reasons as to why the Judge rejected the appellant’s explanation for the correction to his Asylum Screening Interview. There is no dispute that the appellant’s legal representatives had contacted the respondent (in 2023) to make the correction which is consistent with the appellant’s evidence, and in my view the Judge should not only have explained why they rejected this but also the weight that they attached to this apparent discrepancy and how it affected the appellant’s credibility.

12. In [28] the Judge records that the appellant could not remember who he had spoken to about claiming asylum. The Judge does not however go on to say how this effects their assessment of the appellant’s credibility or why.

13. In [30] the Judge concludes their reasons with, what I am find, is a vague and generalised statement:

“Overall, the appellant has given inconsistent evidence served limited evidence and has been vague on important details and I am not satisfied on the evidence that the appellant is genuinely gay and his fears about returning are genuine and in such circumstances, he is not in need of protection.”

14. There is a sufficient lack of specificity and reasoning in the Judge’s findings that amount to a material error of law.

15. For these reasons the Judge’s decision will be set aside. In Begum (remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 00046 (IAC) a panel consisting of the President and the Vice-President of the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber considered and gave guidance on the issue I must consider of when a decision should be made in the Upper Tribunal and when it should be remitted to be remade in the First-tier Tribunal. The circumstances of this case are such that the matter should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh hearing. No findings are preserved.

Notice of Decision

16. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of a material error of law.

17. The appeal is returned to the First-tier Tribunal in Manchester for a de novo rehearing before any Judge other than First-tier Tribunal Judge J A Gould.

L K Gibbs
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
22 December 2025