Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case Nos: UI-2025-003608
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/66186/2024
LP/03748/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 28th January 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RIPLEY

Between

D.H. (NEPAL)
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr West, Counsel, instructed by Gordon and Thompson Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms Clewley, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 8 January 2026

ANONYMITY ORDER

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

1. The appellant made a protection claim on 2 October 2022 which was refused by the respondent in a decision dated 24 May 2024. First-tier Tribunal Judge Derrick (“the Judge”) went on to dismiss the appellant’s appeal in a decision dated 11 May 2025. The appellant was granted permission to appeal by First-tier Tribunal Judge Saffer on 5 August 2025 on the one ground argued. An error of law was found in a decision dated 13 November 2025. The appeal was retained for remaking in the Upper Tribunal with certain of the Judge’s findings preserved.

Anonymity Order

2. The Judge issued an anonymity order. Neither party requested that the order be set aside. I observe that the appellant seeks international protection and consider that his private life rights protected under article 8 ECHR presently outweigh the right of the public to know his identity as a party to these proceedings. The latter right is protected by Article 10 ECHR.

Relevant Facts

3. The appellant is a national of Nepal. The appellant’s claim is that he was a local leader of an unregistered monarchist political party and his home was raided in September 2022 and documents taken.

The Respondent’s argument before the First tier Tribunal

4. In the original decision to refuse the appellant’s asylum claim, the respondent accepted that the adverse treatment the appellant feared from the state, if found credible, would amount to persecution and he would not be able to access a sufficiency of protection or exercise an internal flight alternative. It was disputed that the appellant would face a risk on return from Maoists or that he would be unable to access a sufficiency of protection from such non-state agents.

5. Prior to the appeal hearing, the respondent filed a review in which it was argued, in effect, that the respondent no longer accepted that the appellant would be at risk on return, even if the credibility of his account was accepted. The respondent relied on the 2023 CPIN on Political Affiliation in Nepal (the Nepal CPIN).

First-tier Tribunal Decision

6. The Judge found the appellant was credible and accepted his claimed history. The Judge accepted that the Convention reason of political opinion was engaged, and that the appellant has a genuine fear for that reason. However, the Judge decided that the appellant was facing criminal prosecution for his membership of an unregistered party, rather than political persecution, and also found a lack of evidence that the penalty would not be modest or proportionate.

7. It was considered that the Judge had made an error of law in finding that the appellant faced criminal prosecution rather than persecution, as the decision did not indicate that the Judge had considered the definition of persecution as set out in Section 31(3)(b) and (c) of NABA. This definition required the Judge to consider whether the action taken by the police was discriminatory.

8. The following findings made by the Judge were preserved in the error of law decision:

(i) The crux of the appellant’s claim arose in September 2022, after his arrival in the UK and shortly before he claimed asylum, and thus section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 was not engaged. [23 and 26]
(ii) The appellant was an active local leader of an unregistered pro-monarchist party, which has resulted in him being sought by local law enforcement [25-26]
(iii) The documents he relied on were reliable [25-26}

9. In directions in the error of law decision, both parties were directed to clarify whether it was submitted that the appellant was facing prosecution, and if so, the relevant legal provisions and whether any such lawful criminal prosecution or penalty was considered discriminatory or disproportionate.

Hearing

10. Both parties lodged further evidence prior to the hearing. No evidence was provided to show that membership of an unregistered political party was a criminal offence in Nepal. The appellant provided a letter from a Nepalese lawyer. On the morning of the hearing the appellant provided a better certified translation of that letter. The respondent filed three newspaper articles. At Ms Clewley’s request, Mr West also filed a news article referred to at paragraph 30 of the Judge’s decision, which had not been included in the composite bundle. The pagination in this decision is the PDF numbering of the composite bundle, unless otherwise indicated.

11. The hearing has been recorded. Although the appellant attended the hearing, Mr West declined to call him to give evidence. It was agreed by the representatives that, in view of the preserved findings at paragraphs 23 and 26 of the Judge’s decision, that the serious indicator of future harm or persecution in paragraph 339K did not apply. Both representatives also confirmed that it was understood that the appellant was not seeking to argue that he was at risk from Maoists, as also clarified at paragraph 10 of the error of law decision. Both representatives also concurred that the letter from the Nepalese lawyer indicated that it was not a criminal offence to support an unregistered political party.

12. Submissions were made by Ms Clewley and Mr West. In summary, Ms Clewley argued that the appellant was not facing persecution, and any such risk on return had diminished as a consequence of the change in government. The author of the police letter should be considered a non-state agent, and the appellant could access a sufficiency of protection. She stated that she did not rely on an argument that he could relocate. Mr West relied on MAH (Egypt) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 216, the short period of time since the recent regime change, the wording of the police evidence and also made submissions on the country evidence provided by the respondent and the Nepal CPIN.

Analysis

13. The preserved findings of the judge at paragraph 26 conclude that the appellant was an active local leader of an unregistered pro-monarchist political party which has resulted in him being sought by local law-enforcement. In the same paragraph, he goes on to find the documentary evidence reliable. Those documents, at pages 37-52, include letters from the party he supported, the Prajantra party, the ward chairman, a local cooperative society and a public witness survey report. The most significant documents for the appellant are the letters from the District Police office in Buddhashanti Rural Municipality in Jhapa dated 16 February 2025 (page 43) and from the inspector of police in the same area in Jhapa dated 9 February 2025 (page 51). In those letters, worded almost identically, it is stated that the appellant has been conducting political activities contrary to the provisions of the laws of Nepal and that he is kindly requested to attend the police station. If he does not, the letters state that legal procedures will also be taken against him.

14. In the letter from the Nepalese lawyer dated 16 December 2025, filed shortly before this hearing, it is stated that supporting the monarchy is not a crime in Nepal. The lawyer argues that the police have been unnecessarily infringing the appellant’s constitutional and civil rights. The letter does not specifically state that it is not a criminal offence to support an unregistered monarchist political party. However, both representatives accepted that this letter suggested it was not.

15. Having considered the contents of both the police letters and the lawyer’s letter, I am not satisfied that it has been shown to the lower standard that the appellant is facing prosecution for a criminal offence. Neither representative has provided further evidence that this is the case, despite being directed to do so. Ms Clewley accepted that insofar as the police letters stated that the appellant had acted contrary to the law in Nepal and that legal procedures would be pursued against him for this reason, that the author was acting outside legitimate police powers.

16. Ms Clewley argued that despite the statements made in the police letters in February 2025, there was a lack of oral or any other evidence from the appellant that the police had been to his home since February 2024 or issued an arrest warrant against him (page 102). There was a lack of evidence that the police had taken any further steps to pursue him since February 2025, notwithstanding the statement in the letters that the appellant should present himself to the police as soon as possible. She further relied on the background evidence from the lawyer which showed that it was lawful to support monarchist parties and the information in the Nepal CPIN that pro-monarchist parties are able to express their views and protest.

17. In section 3 of the Nepal CPIN it is recorded that:

3.1.1 In general, leaders, members and supporters of opposition political parties are not at real risk of persecution or serious harm from state actors. The onus is on the person to demonstrate otherwise.

18. In the light of this country background, Ms Clewly is in effect, arguing that the district police have made empty threats against the appellant and that there is no real intent to pursue the appellant. However, it is accepted in the preserved findings that the police were pursuing the appellant in Nepal from September 2022. The appellant’s fears do not only rest on the police letters dated February 2025. In his interview (in May 2024) the appellant stated that the police had been to his home six times (page 102). The February 2025 party letter, at page 38, records that the police have come repeatedly to his home since September 2022.

19. I am mindful that the appellant has not returned to Nepal since June 2022, and the police would have been aware of his absence since they raided his home. I am satisfied that the police letter of February 2025 provides further evidence that the local police have an ongoing, sustained and adverse interest in the appellant.

20. Taking this background overall, I am satisfied that the local police have demonstrated a real interest in pursuing this appellant. Although the general background country information does not support the appellant, the accepted evidence relied on by this appellant does show at least a localized risk. I am not satisfied that the police letters comprise an empty threat. The letter from the lawyer provides evidence that the appellant may be regarded as holding beliefs contrary to the republic, which may well be considered anathema to the local police, although they do not comprise a crime. The police letters refer to the appellant’s monarchist activities. There is a lack of evidence that the police are seeking the appellant for any reason other than his accepted monarchist political activity.

21. In considering the definition of persecution in Section 31(3)(b) and (c) of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022., I am satisfied that any prosecution bought by the local police would not only be unlawful but would also be discriminatory. That is, that the appellant is wanted, and may face prosecution, because of his political activity and not because of any crime.

Regime change
22. As demonstrated by the material relied on by Ms Clewley, there was a regime change in Nepal in September 2025. This followed protests, largely by Gen Z demonstrators, and led to the toppling of the existing government. Ms Karki was then appointed the prime minister of an interim government, largely on an anticorruption platform. She has previously led investigations into corruption and abuse by senior political, military and police officials.

23. It is accepted that her appointment may well lead to a drive to stamp out corruption and abuse by officials. It is worth stating that there is a lack of evidence that the action against the appellant is a trumped-up case of corruption. The evidence suggests that it is politically motivated. Importantly, and as argued by Mr West, the interim government has only been in power for four months and has had little time to impose improved standards. Further, the local police in this case are situated in Jhapa, in the far east of the country and over 400 kilometres from the capital. There is a lack of evidence that this recent regime change would yet have any significant relevant impact on the local risk to this appellant.

Sufficiency of protection
24. In the alternative it is argued that the appellant could seek the protection of other individuals in the local police or local authorities or make a report to higher officers or authorities. Firstly, it is noted that the letter at page 43 requires the appellant to report to the police post at Buddhashanti Rural Municipality. The letter at page 51 requires the appellant to report to the police post at Budhabare and is written by a police inspector. These details would indicate that the appellant is not sought by an individual police officer without influence working out of one police post. That is supported by the appellant’s undisputed account that his family home has been repeatedly raided. I am not satisfied to the lower standard that those raids would have been conducted by one rogue police officer acting alone.

25. Considering the content of the February 2025 letters and that the local police have persistently raided the appellant’s home, I am not satisfied, to the lower standard, that the appellant would be able to secure local protection from that adverse attention. The views of the police officers who have conducted the raids and author(s) of the letters may well indicate the prevailing views of the local police. That is that the rights of monarchists to advocate for boycotts and make political propaganda are not respected. Thus, I am not satisfied that the state, as represented in the appellant’s locality, has taken steps to prevent persecution by operating an effective legal system to address it, as set out in s34(2)(a) of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (NABA 2022). It is also noted that paragraph 4.1.1 of the Nepal CPIN accepts that if and appellant has a well-founded for of persecution from the state that they will not in general be able to obtain protection from state authorities.

26. Against that background, I am not satisfied that the appellant is safely able to access any alternative source of protection by reporting local police officers to senior officials, say in the district or provincial capital, and to expect that these local police officers would be effectively disciplined, rather than this exacerbating the risk to the appellant in his own locality. Section 12 of the Nepal CPIN shows that monarchist parties did not perform well in the appellant’s region in the 2022 elections. The available evidence would indicate that the local police have been able to pursue action against the appellant because his political activity is not considered acceptable, and there is a lack of evidence to suggest that such anti monarchist views are confined to the appellant’s particular area of Jhapa district. There is a risk, to the lower standard, that similar views are held by more senior police in the region. For these reasons I am not satisfied to the lower standard that the appellant could reasonably be expected to avail himself of a sufficiency of protection

Conclusion
31. The appellant’s protection appeal is allowed. I find that the appellant has established to the lower standard that there is a real risk of him suffering persecution contrary to Article 1 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees if returned to Nepal.

32. In these circumstances, there is no need to determine the Article 8 appeal.

Notice of Decision

33. I allow the protection appeal on asylum grounds under the 1951 Refugee Convention

34. The anonymity order is to continue.

F Ripley
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

22 January 2026.