Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-003700

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/54278/2024
LP/12131/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 24th of October 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KAMARA

Between

YY
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr P Nathan, counsel instructed by Howe & Co Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms N Kerr, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 14 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
Introduction
1. The appellant has been granted permission to appeal the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing his appeal, following a hearing which took place on 25 April 2025.
2. Permission to appeal was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge O’Callaghan on 14 August 2025.
Anonymity
3. I have continued the anonymity order made by the First-Tier Tribunal. I have considered the public interest in open justice, but conclude that it is outweighed by the importance of facilitating the discharge of the United Kingdom’s obligations to those claiming international protection because of the need for confidentiality.
Factual Background
4. The appellant is a national of Türkiye, of Kurdish ethnicity and now aged twenty. He made a protection claim on 4 January 2023, which was refused by way of a decision dated 2 February 2024. In essence, the substance of that claim was that the appellant was involved with the HDP and that his activities brought him to the adverse attention of the authorities. The respondent accepted that the appellant undertook low level activities in relation to the HDP but concluded that the appellant’s claim to be of adverse interest to the authorities of Türkiye lacked credibility.
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal
5. At the hearing before the First-tier Tribunal, the appellant was treated as a vulnerable witness. Otherwise, the judge noted a number of issues with the credibility of the appellant’s claim and found that he lacked a subjective fear of persecution.
The appeal to the Upper Tribunal
6. The grounds of appeal can be summarised as follows;
i) A failure to adequately assess risk on return for a Kurdish returnee with an HDP background travelling with a one-way travel document as a failed asylum seeker, applying IK (Returnees - Records – IFA) Turkey CG [2004] UKIAT 00312;
ii) The assessment of credibility was flawed in that the judge required corroborative evidence, attached weight to immaterial matters, inadequate consideration of evidence that was available
7. Permission to appeal was granted on the basis sought.
8. The respondent filed no Rule 24 response.
The error of law hearing
9. The matter comes before the Upper Tribunal to determine whether the decision contains an error of law and, if it is so concluded, to either re-make the decision or remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal to do so. A bundle was submitted by the appellant containing, inter alia, the core documents in the appeal, including the appellant’s and respondent’s bundles before the First-tier Tribunal.
10. The hearing was attended by representatives for both parties as above. Both representatives made submissions and the conclusions below reflect those arguments and submissions where necessary.
11. I should add that Ms Kerr ultimately accepted that the First-tier Tribunal judge did not engage with the factors set out in IK (Returnees - Records – IFA) Turkey CG [2004] UKIAT 00312 or even mention this case at all.
Discussion
12. The first ground concerns the judge’s application of IK. Firstly, there is no reference to this decision anywhere in the decision and reasons. I am satisfied that submissions were made on the appellant’s behalf. Indeed paragraph 5 of the skeleton argument states that it is contended that IK applies to his case in relation to risk on return and paragraphs 16-18 set out the relevant factors in this case. Those factors were said to be that the appellant would be a failed asylum seeker, of Kurdish ethnicity, previously perceived as a separatist who openly supported a pro-Kurdish political organisation.
13. The judge did make reference to a case he cited only as ’ IA (Turkey ) CG. ‘I have taken this to be a reference to IA & Others (Risk-Guidelines-Separatist) Turkey CG [2003] UKIAT 00034. There were references to this case at [27] and [34] of the decision. On both occasions, IA was mentioned only when the judge was summarising the representatives’ respective submissions. The judge did not proceed to consider the potential risk factors set out in IA at [46] and replicated in IK at ]14]. I am therefore satisfied that the judge erred in this regard.
14. In considering whether the aforementioned error was material, I need to assess whether the second ground is made out. If the judge’s credibility findings are sustainable, then the failure to consider the risk factors may not amount to a material error.
15. Having considered the issues set out in the second ground, I am, nonetheless, satisfied that the judge’s credibility findings are unsafe for the following reasons.
16. The appellant provided a receipt in relation to a donation to HDP, a party of which he was a member. That much was accepted by the respondent. The judge nonetheless criticised that evidence at [51] of the decision, commenting that ‘it was not credible that the HDP operates an administrative service when the objective evidence is considered.’ Apart from going behind the respondent’s acceptance of the document, the judge further erred by overlooking the fact that the HDP was operating lawfully in Turkey at the time of the appellant’s involvement in 2022 .
17. The judge made further criticisms of the appellant at [47] and [50] for the lack of further documents to corroborate his account of membership of the HDP. Yet the respondent accepted that the appellant was a low-level member of the HDP as the judge noted at [38] of the decision and reasons. It is further apparent from the decision that despite the respondent’s concessions, the judge did not accept the appellant’s political involvement with the HDP. It follows, that those findings were flawed. I therefore set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal, preserving no findings.
18. I canvassed the views of the parties as to the venue of any remaking. Ms Kerr suggested retaining the case at the Upper Tribunal albeit no reasons were advanced. Mr Nathan was of the view that the matter ought to be remitted if there were no preserved findings of fact. Applying AEB [2022] EWCA Civ 1512 and Begum (Remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 00046 (IAC), I carefully considered whether to retain the matter for remaking in the Upper Tribunal, in line with the general principle set out in statement 7 of the Senior President’s Practice Statements.
19. I took into consideration the history of this case, the nature and extent of the findings to be made as well as the fact that the nature of the errors of law in this case meant that the appellant was deprived of an adequate consideration of his protection appeal. I further consider that it would be unfair for either party to be unable to avail themselves of the two-tier decision-making process and therefore remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.

Notice of Decision
The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did involve the making of an error on a point of law.
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside.
The appeal is remitted, de novo, to the First-tier Tribunal to be reheard by a different judge.

T Kamara

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

16 October 2025