Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case Nos: UI-2025-003576
UI-2025-003892

First-tier Tribunal Nos: PA/68633/2024
LP/03068/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 13th of November 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RIMINGTON

Between

CG
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr E Raw instructed by Howe & Co Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr K Ojo, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 14th October 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 against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Swinnerton promulgated on 18th May 2025 in which the judge dismissed the appeal against the respondent’s decision dated 12th July 2024 to refuse the appellant’s protection claim made on 1st January 2023.
2. The appellant, a citizen of Turkey, asserts that he is of Kurdish ethnicity and a politically active member of the HDP (the People’s Democratic Party) in Turkey and that he was detained on two occasions and ill-treated as a consequence of his political activities. He fears his life would be at risk from the authorities should he return to Turkey owing to his political activities.
3. The grounds of appeal are as follows.
Ground 1:
4. The appellant provided medical evidence regarding his mental health which was supportive of his account of being a victim of ill-treatment at the hands of the Turkish authorities. The report was Dr Garwood’s report dated 17th December 2024. The appellant adduced evidence of his political involvement in an HDP form and a donation receipt and a voter observer card. He also provided corroborative evidence relating to the prosecution of his brother, Serkan Gullu.
5. It was submitted that the judge’s conclusion that the claim was fabricated was contradictory. On the one hand the judge placed some evidential weight on the HDP observer card, application form and annual dues, but on the other hand he concluded that the claim was fabricated. The judge also attached evidential weight to the documents relating to the appellant’s brother who was being prosecuted for membership of a terrorist organisation as stated above. The judge submitted that the appellant was embellishing his claim which in itself implied there was some merit but then stated he had fabricated his account. At [27] the judge stated:
“27. The Appellant, with respect to his claimed membership of the HDP, has provided a document entitled ‘Membership form’ for the HDP. It is dated 8.5.2016. It details, amongst other points, the name and date of birth of the Appellant. It does not contain a photograph of the Appellant to which I do not attach any significance given that the Appellant asserts that membership forms of the HDP do not contain photographs. The Appellant has provided a document entitled ‘Income Receipt’ dated 14.4.2023 which the Appellant asserts is his annual membership fee. The Appellant has not provided an income receipt for any period prior to his arrival in the UK nor thereafter. In relation to these documents and the document entitled ‘Observer Card’ for the HDP which refers to the Appellant observing the election process but which is undated, I attach some but certainly not significant weight.”,
and at [20] and [21] the judge held that:
“20. At the asylum interview, the Appellant stated that when he was detained for the first time he was asked questions about his party, his friends and his brother. He was asked questions about his brother because his brother had been detained politically. The Appellant, though, did not know the name of the political party of which his brother was a member. He was asked (at question 76 of the asylum interview): ‘Why can you not remember, you said you had documentary evidence of his arrest’. The Appellant answered: ‘At the moment I can’t remember’.
21. Despite claiming to have been politically involved personally for nearly 20 years in Turkey and coming from a politically-involved family, the Appellant was unable to even name the party of which his brother was a member and in relation to which he had been detained and imprisoned by the authorities. At the hearing, the Appellant by way of explanation stated that this was because he was stressed at the asylum interview and feeling unwell. The Appellant was, however, able to remember specific dates and other details relating to his account at the asylum interview. I do not accept the explanation of the Appellant for his inability to name the political party of his brother. I find that this undermines the credibility of the Appellant’s account”.
6. The appellant thus explained that during the interview he was stressed and still affected by his poor mental health. Even if he could not recall the political party his brother was involved in, the judge placed unduly significant negative evidential weight on this matter. Additionally, the appellant adduced corroborative evidence relating to his brother’s criminal prosecution. The judge made an error by rejecting this claim.
7. Apart from Dr Garwood’s report there was other evidence of the appellant’s poor mental health. The judge rejected his explanations for failing to recall the political party his brother was accused of supporting without engaging with the reports of his poor mental health and arguably rejected the appellant’s credibility in isolation from the assessment of the medical evidence contrary to Mibanga [2005] EWCA Civ 267.
Ground 2:
8. There was inadequate consideration of risk on return.
9. The appellant contends that the credibility findings were unsustainable. The judge findings that the appellant was not an HDP member and not politically involved was challenged but it was also submitted that a Kurdish returnee without adequate documentation and a politically active brother who was being prosecuted for membership of a terrorist organisation would be at risk. The judge failed to assess the risk factors which ought to have underpinned his assessment of risk on return. IA and others (Risk-guidelines-separatist) Turkey CG [2003] UKIAT 00034 identified potential risk factors to be taken into account at [46]:
“46. The following are the factors which inexhaustively we consider to be material in giving rise to potential suspicion in the minds of the authorities concerning a particular claimant.
a) The level if any of the appellant's known or suspected involvement with a separatist organisation. Together with this must be assessed the basis upon which it is contended that the authorities knew of or might suspect such involvement.
b) Whether the appellant has ever been arrested or detained and if so in what circumstances. In this context it may be relevant to note how long ago such arrests or detentions took place, if it is the case that there appears to be no causal connection between them and the claimant’s departure from Turkey, but otherwise it may be a factor of no particular significance.
c) Whether the circumstances of the appellant’s past arrest(s) and detention(s) (if any) indicate that the authorities did in fact view him or her as a suspected separatist.
d) Whether the appellant was charged or placed on reporting conditions or now faces charges.
e) The degree of ill treatment to which the appellant was subjected in the past.
f) Whether the appellant has family connections with a separatist organisation such as KADEK or HADEP or DEHAP.
g) How long a period elapsed between the appellant’s last arrest and detention and his or her departure from Turkey. In this regard it may of course be relevant to consider the evidence if any concerning what the appellant was in fact doing between the time of the last arrest and detention and departure from Turkey. It is a factor that is only likely to be of any particular relevance if there is a reasonably lengthy period between the two events without any ongoing problems being experienced on the part of the appellant from the authorities.
h) Whether in the period after the appellant’s last arrest there is any evidence that he or she was kept under surveillance or monitored by the authorities.
i) Kurdish ethnicity.
j) Alevi faith.
k) Lack of a current up-to-date Turkish passport.
l) Whether there is any evidence that the authorities have been pursuing or otherwise expressing an interest in the appellant since he or she left Turkey.
m) Whether the appellant became an informer or was asked to become one.
n) Actual perceived political activities abroad in connection with a separatist organisation.
o) If the returnee is a military draft evader there will be some logical impact on his profile to those assessing him on his immediate return. Following Sepet of course this alone is not a basis for a refugee or human rights claim”.
10. The judge summarised his findings only at [31] of the determination and concluded that the appellant was not a credible witness, but the judge had made a material error by not engaging with the country guidance authority.
Permission to appeal
11. Permission to appeal was granted on limited grounds by FtT Judge Garner. It was found that the judge gave adequate reasons in relation to credibility grounds in relation to the mental health issues and the overall credibility assessment. However, it was found that judge failed to address, arguably, the risk factors set out in IK.
12. The grounds were renewed to the Upper Tribunal and UT Judge Landes who granted permission on all grounds noting that the judge granting permission considered it arguable that the judge did not address the documentation relating to the brother but also noted that the judge’s findings suggested that some of the appellant’s claim was accepted.
Submissions
13. At the hearing before me Mr Raw submitted that he relied on the grounds and additionally in relation to the fabrication of the appellant’s account, the judge erred and was mistaken in fact when criticising the appellant for embellishing his account having made no mention of incidents of being arrested prior to the two instances of his detention. That contradicted the appellant’s asylum interview at question 83 where the appellant specifically recorded that he had been taken to the police station and that had happened on countless occasions.
14. In relation to the documentation there was no confirmation whether the judge accepted or rejected the documentation relating to the brother.
15. Mr Ojo relied on the Rule 24 notice and submitted that the judge had correctly applied Tanveer Ahmed [2002] UKIAT 00439 and the judge was right to say that previous detentions had not been mentioned in his witness statement. Mr Ojo also observed that it was not known what documents were considered by Dr Garwood.
16. In terms of the second ground of appeal simply minimal errors would not be enough to undermine the decision as a whole and if the credibility points taken against the appellant stood it merely left his ethnicity.
17. It was not accepted that the brother had been detained.
Conclusions
18. The judge made findings from [10] onwards and at [16] cited Tanveer Ahmed and criticised the appellant for having thrown away the documentation given to him by the authorities in relation to his two detentions. The judge said at [18] this:
“18. I find the explanation of the Appellant in this respect to be entirely lacking in credibility. By his own account, the Appellant went into hiding immediately after his second detention. I find that it would have been clear, at that point in time, that it would be important for the Appellant to keep the documentation relating to his second detention in particular given that the gap in time between the Appellant being released from his second detention and claiming asylum in the UK was a matter of weeks. I found the explanation of the Appellant in relation to this aspect of his account to be lacking in any substance and to be improvisatory”.
19. At [20] the judge also recorded the fact that the appellant when interviewed during the asylum interview stated that he did not know the name of the political party of which the brother was a member and the appellant merely answered in question 76 when asked why he could not remember “At the moment I can’t remember”. The judge stated this at [21]:
“21. ... At the hearing, the Appellant by way of explanation stated that this was because he was stressed at the asylum interview and feeling unwell. The Appellant was, however, able to remember specific dates and other details relating to his account at the asylum interview. I do not accept the explanation of the Appellant for his inability to name the political party of his brother. I find that this undermines the credibility of the Appellant’s account”.
The judge also found that the appellant was unable to describe the relationship between the HDP and the PKK when asked at interview at question 88. The judge found that again damaged the credibility of the appellant. At the next paragraph, [23], however, the judge stated:
“23. At the hearing, the Appellant was asked on cross-examination why he had only been detained for the first time in 2022 when he had been politically involved with the HDP for 8 years at that point in time. The Appellant gave evidence that he had been picked up by the authorities on numerous occasions prior to his first detention, that he would be put in a van, interrogated and subjected to violence. The Appellant, though, despite having provided two witness statements, has made no mention whatsoever of these incidents prior to the hearing. These claimed incidents are clearly of importance and relevance to his claim. I find that the Appellant has, in failing to mention these incidents previously despite having had ample opportunity to do so and being legally represented for some time, sought to embellish his account”.
20. The difficulty with this assessment is that in response to a question at AIR 83, the appellant specifically stated “I am a professional electrician. Police in civilian clothes would come to my shop and show me my ID and take me to the police station. That happened countless times not just me, my father who is 70+ years old. My brothers, all of them”.
21. At this point the judge took against the appellant’s credibility on the basis of an incorrect assessment that the appellant had failed to mention incidents despite having been given ample opportunity.
22. The judge’s previous two credibility points were in relation to the appellant’s inability to being able to state which party his brother was involved in and further the fact that the appellant did not know the relationship between the HDP and the PKK. The judge found these undermined or damaged the appellant’s account.
23. First, however, it is clear that the judge erroneously relied on the observations at [23] that the appellant had not mentioned being picked up to further damage the appellant’s account. Indeed, the judge referenced the importance of those incidents.
24. Additionally, what is clear is that at the CPIN People’s Democratic Party HDP August 2023 at 3.1.10 and 3.1.11 it is recorded as follows:
“3.1.10 The HDP and the PKK are separate organisations with different goals. The HDP was established in 2012 to promote Kurdish rights through the democratic process. It also appeals to other underrepresented groups, such as other ethnic minorities besides Kurds, women and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people. The PKK is recognised by Turkey and its western allies, including the United Kingdom, as a terrorist organisation (see Logo and History, Aims and Perceived association with the PKK).
3.1.11 The HDP denies direct organisational links with the PKK. However, several interlocutors who met with a Home Office fact-finding team in June 2019 believed that the government considered there to be a link between the PKK and the HDP; sources gave differing opinions on the extent to which this was accurate and, if accurate, the reasons for this. In March 2021, a prosecutor filed a case in Turkey’s Constitutional Court to ban the HDP, accusing the party of colluding with the PKK and acting as an extension of the terrorist group. The case also called for 451 HDP members to be banned from politics for 5 years. In June 2021, Turkey’s Constitutional Court approved the opening of prohibition proceedings against the HDP (see Logo and History and Attempts to ban the HDP and merging with the Green Left Party)”.
It is recorded at 3.1.11 that the HDP denies direct organisational links with the PKK. Albeit the question includes “perceived”, to conclude that the appellant failed to provide a sufficiently detailed description of the relationship between the HDP and the PKK when it is suggested there is no formal relationship, was misplaced.
25. In relation to the appellant’s brother at [24] the judge stated this:
“24. The Appellant has provided some documentation in support of his claim. He has provided documentation relating to the legal proceedings taken against his brother, Serkan Gullu, in Turkey. At the hearing, the Appellant gave evidence that he obtained this documentation from the solicitor of his brother. The documentation includes, amongst other documents, what is described as a ‘Record of Hearing’. It refers to a date of hearing of 4.10.23 which was adjourned. It also includes a document entitled ‘Suspect Interrogation Record’ with a date of interrogation of 2.9.2019 which, in the section entitled ‘Accusation’, refers to the alleged membership of the Appellant’s brother of “TKP/ML (The Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist-Leninist) Terrorist Organisation”.
There was no conclusion on whether the judge accepted that the brother had indeed been incarcerated on political grounds or that this was the appellant’s brother. The judge attached “minimal weight to the documentation relating to the brother of the appellant” but did not appear to reject it entirely.
26. Similarly at [27] in respect of the appellant’s claimed membership of the HDP, the judge does not appear to reject the existence of the HDP membership form and although the judge criticises the lack of income receipts in relation to his annual membership fee in relation to a period prior to his arrival in the UK nor thereafter, the judge does not reject these documents. In relation to the document entitled Observer Card for the HDP, the judge indeed attaches some albeit not significant weight. As the grounds observe although the judge concludes that the claim was fabricated this appears to be contradicted by the attachment of some evidential weight to the HDP observer card, application form and annual dues (donation receipt).
27. Additionally, although the judge’s criticises the evidence of Dr Garwood because of the documents on which he relies, the judge also states “That is relevant because the report of Dr Garwood makes no mention at all of any medication taken by the Appellant nor of any treatment for mental health issues received by the Appellant”.
28. That is incorrect because Dr Garwood’s report does make mention of treatment given to the appellant.
29. I can accept that Dr Garwood has not identified the documents with which he was supplied but there is clear reference within his report to the medication taken by the appellant and thus of treatment for his mental health issues.
30. The judge concluded at [31] that having considered all of the circumstances of this case, he did not accept the account of the appellant which he found to be fabricated.
31. Notwithstanding the challenge in relation to Mibanga [2025] EWCA Civ 367, I find that there were factual errors used in the assessment by the judge, and I cannot be satisfied that the errors made by the judge were immaterial in relation to credibility.
32. Turning to ground 2 bearing in mind the approach to credibility was flawed and a material error of law, this would feed into the assessment of risk on return and the factors which should be taken into account following Turkish country guidance caselaw.
33. I thus find there was a material error of law in the decision which should be set aside.
34. I invited submissions on disposal from both parties and Mr Raw submitted that the matter should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal. Bearing in mind the fundamental credibility errors that I have identified, I consider that this case should be relisted before the First-tier Tribunal.
Notice of decision
The Judge erred materially for the reasons identified. I set aside the decision pursuant to Section 12(2)(a) of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (TCE 2007). Bearing in mind the nature and extent of the findings to be made the matter should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal under section 12(2) (b) (i) of the TCE 2007 and further to 7.2 (b) of the Presidential Practice Statement.
Direction

(i) The parties should file and serve any further evidence no later than 14 days prior to any relisted hearing.

(ii) The parties should file and serve skeleton arguments no later than 7 days prior to any relisted hearing.

Helen Rimington
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
6th November 2025