Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-003873
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/53365/2024
LP/03483/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 5th January 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ATHWAL

Between

ED
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellants: Mr Hawkins, instructed by Kreston Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr Mullen, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 16 December 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. The parties may apply on notice to vary this order.

DECISION AND REASONS

1. The Appellant appeals the decision of the First-tier Tribunal. On 25 June 2025 the First-tier Tribunal Judge (“the Judge”) dismissed the Appellant’s appeal against the Respondent’s decision of 26 January 2024, in which the Respondent refused the Appellant’s asylum, humanitarian protection, and human rights applications.

Factual Background

2. The Appellant is a Turkish national of Kurdish ethnicity. The background to the appeal is set out in the composite hearing bundle. In summary, the Appellant claims to have supported Halkların Demokratik Partisi (“HDP”) since 2014 through the distribution of leaflets, attendance at demonstrations and rallies, and by donating to election campaigns. He further states that he was detained and questioned by the police on two occasions, 4 November 2020 and 10 June 2022, during which he was subjected to physical and verbal abuse concerning his political activities and alleged affiliation to the PKK. Following his release, he travelled to Istanbul and subsequently left Turkey on 15 August 2022.

3. The Respondent does not dispute that the claim, taken at its highest, engages the Refugee Convention by way of the Appellant’s claimed political opinion and race. The Respondent also accepts that if the core facts were found in the Appellant’s favour, then the Appellant would not receive sufficient protection from the Turkish state and nor could he internally relocate. The Respondent does not accept that the Appellant is a supporter of HDP and that he was detained and tortured by Turkish police.

The Decision of the First-tier Tribunal

4. The Judge heard the appeal on 11 June 2025 and made the following findings;

i. Having applied the Joint Presidential Guidance Note No. 2 of 2010, the Appellant did not meet the threshold for vulnerability. The Appellant did not indicate that any mental health problems he may have, impacted on his ability to provide coherent evidence. [14]

ii. The Appellant was not a credible witness. His evidence was vague and inconsistent between his interviews and witness statement and after the refusal of his claim, he introduced, without a reasonable explanation, new evidence that contradicted his earlier account. [15]

iii. The Appellant had not established that he supported HDP in Turkey, that he came from a politically active family, and that he continued to support the HDP. [16]-[19] [26]

iv. The Appellant had not established that he was detained and tortured on 4 November 2020 and in June 2022. [22]-[30]

Issues on appeal to the Upper Tribunal

5. The Appellant sought permission to appeal on the following grounds:

i. the Judge failed to determine whether the Appellant was at risk on return as a Kurd failed asylum-seeker;

ii. the Judge failed to analyse the evidence adequately and in particular failed to take the Appellant’s answers in his asylum screening interview into account when considering his claim;

iii. the Judge erred by drawing adverse inferences from the Appellant’s failure to answer questions which were not asked in his asylum interview.

6. Limited permission to appeal was granted on application to the Upper Tribunal. Permission was not granted on the first ground . The Judge considering the application was satisfied that the First-tier Tribunal Judge gave consideration at [31]-[33] to the Appellant’s claim to be at risk as a Kurd and found that the general discrimination faced by Kurds did not amount to persecution.

7. Permission to appeal was granted on the second and third grounds on the following basis;

“The First-tier Tribunal’s decision was based heavily on apparent discrepancies between the Appellant’s answers in his screening and substantive asylum interviews and his subsequent witness statement. It is just arguable that the First-tier Tribunal erred by reaching a conclusion on credibility prior to considering the Appellant’s witness statement, and did not sufficiently engage with the questions which the Appellant was asked in interview nor consider his case and the evidence as a whole.”

The Hearing

8. The hearing proceeded via cloud video platform. The Appellant was not present and Mr Hawkins was granted time to make enquiries. Mr Hawkins confirmed that he had full instructions and that in these circumstances, where the parties were proceeding on legal submissions only, the matter could proceed in the Appellant’s absence. Mr Mullen did not object. I agreed to proceed without the Appellant.

9. Mr Mullen served on the Tribunal the Respondent’s response to the ground of appeal under Rule 24 of the Procedure Rules. Mr Hawkins confirmed that he was provided a copy before the hearing commenced. Both representatives confirmed that I had before me all documents relied upon.

10. I heard submissions from Mr Hawkins and Mr Mullen. Mr Hawkins relied on the grounds of permission application. Mr Muller relied on the Rule 24 response. I reserved my decision.

Discussion

Ground 2- Error of law by failure to adequately analyse the evidence and interview responses and conflating the basis of claim

11. The Judge found the Appellant’s failure to mention his detention and ill-treatment in November 2020 and June 2022, in either his screening or asylum interview, undermined the Appellant’s credibility.

12. Mr Hawkins argued that the Judge erred in law by finding that the Appellant had not provided a reasonable explanation for this failure. In the screening interview the Appellant stated;

“I am being threatened with my life because I am a member of the HDP party. The police assume I am part of the PKK party and I am scared. They will torture me.” [4.1]
“Have you ever been involved with, or accused of being involved with any - pro-government groups - political organization - religious organization - armed or violent organisation, group or party?” “Because I am Kurdish they accused me of being a member of the PKK.” [5.5].

13. It was argued that the Appellant’s response demonstrated that during the screening interview the Appellant raised the following issues: he was receiving threats to his life; the police assumed the Appellant is a member of PKK; the police would torture him. It was therefore incumbent upon the Respondent when conducting the substantive interview to question the Appellant about these specific matters and in doing so the Home Office Guidance on Asylum Interviews, version 10, dated 10 October 2025 should be followed, as referenced in the Appellant’s skeleton argument (p175 composite bundle, [15]). The Respondent failed to follow her guidance because she failed to: assist the Appellant in establishing the relevant aspects of the claim; encourage him to disclose all relevant information; and, explore and assess the relevant information. In the refusal decision the Respondent rejected the Appellant’s claim on the basis that his claim lacked detail. This was a further breach of her Guidance on Asylum Interviews which states;

“You must also explore in more detail if there is a significant lack of information or gap in the account. You should not seek every detail exhaustively, but you should remember that the credibility of an account cannot be dismissed on grounds of a lack of detail if the questioning during the interview did not attempt to bring out those details.”

14. It was submitted that the Judge failed to take into account these factors when assessing the Appellant’s failure to mention in the interview, matters he later relied on in his witness statement.

15. Mr Hawkins argued that the Judge proceeded to conflate the Appellant’s response to question 54 of the substantive interview, which was an account of the general discrimination experienced by his family and Kurds, with the Appellant’s account of being a supporter of HDP and an imputed PKK supporter. Furthermore, the Respondent should have explored this issue further by asking follow up questions in the interview, she failed to do so and drew an adverse inference instead. The Judge in assessing the evidence failed to take this into account.

16. Mr Mullen argued that the screening interview had to be considered in its entirety, which included [5.4]. The Appellant was asked a direct question, “Have you ever been detained, either in the UK or any other country for any reason?” The Appellant’s response was “No.” It was submitted that the form and manner in which questions were asked in interviews could always be improved upon, but an interviewing officer could not be expected to go behind a definitive answer. The Appellant clearly stated that he had never been detained and therefore it would have been inappropriate to go behind the Appellant’s answers and question him during the substantive interview about detentions in Turkey.

17. It was submitted that guidance on asylum interviews was followed and the matters raised in the screening interview were explored. In the substantive interview at questions 37 to 42 the interviewing officer explored the Appellant and his families involvement with HDP; at question 50 the Appellant was asked about threats he received because he was Kurdish.

18. In response Mr Hawkin submitted that whilst the Appellant may have stated during the screening interview, that he was not detained, there were generally misunderstandings during screening interviews. Mr Hawkin’s clarified that he could not direct me to particular evidence that established the Appellant had misunderstood the question put to him at [5.4]. Mr Hawkins proceeded to argue that despite the Appellant’s answer at [5.4] in the screening interview, he should have been asked further questions about this in the substantive interview. The Appellant was constrained and directed by questions during the interview, it was incumbent on the interviewer to ask those questions.

19. There are two issues for determination. First, whether the argument now advanced was pursued before the First‑tier Tribunal. Secondly, if it was, whether the Judge adequately analysed the evidence and interview responses, addressed the Appellant’s submissions, and avoided conflating the Appellant’s answers in interview with the issues requiring determination.

20. I have reminded myself of the summary of principles set out in Volpi & Anor v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464, [2022] 4 W.L.R. 48, to be adopted when it is an appeal on facts. An appeal court is bound, unless there is compelling reason to the contrary, to assume that the trial judge has taken the whole of the evidence into consideration. The mere fact that a judge does not mention a specific piece of evidence does not mean that they overlooked it. Furthermore, reasons for judgment will always be capable of having been better expressed. An appeal court should not subject a judgment to narrow textual analysis. Nor should it be picked over or construed as though it was a piece of legislation or a contract.

21. I note the Asylum Interview Guidance was issued after the Appellant was interviewed. I was not provided with a copy of the guidance that was in force at the time of the interview.

22. I am not satisfied that the entirety of the Appellant’s argument before me today was argued before the Judge. The ASA served on the First-Tier Tribunal at [15] states;

“This is not accepted by the appellant; it is his case that he was told at the outset to only answer the questions put to him and he did to the best of his ability. At no point was he asked to further elaborate by the IO. It is submitted that in AIR the onus loses with the IO to ask the pertinent questions and facilitate the appellant’s attempts to give a detailed account of his claim.

23. The ASA does not clarify what aspect of the Respondent’s position the Appellant disputes, nor is the meaning of the phrase “onus loses” apparent. It is likely a typographical error for “onus lies.” However, when [15] is read together with the extracts from the Asylum interview Guidance and [16], the basis of the Appellant’s argument becomes apparent: namely, that he did not provide an account of his involvement with HDP or of his alleged detentions because he was not asked the relevant questions, and the interviewing officer failed to explore these matters adequately.

24. The ASA does not address [5.4] of the screening interview or explain why, in circumstances where the Appellant expressly stated that he had not been detained, the interviewing officer ought nevertheless to have explored the issue further in the substantive interview. Mr Hawkin did not establish that this aspect of the argument was advanced before the First‑tier Tribunal in oral submissions. In these circumstances, the Judge cannot be criticised for not dealing with a point that was not put to him.

25. I therefore turn to whether the Judge considered the argument that was before him when he assessed the accounts provided in the interviews against the account provided in the witness statement. I am satisfied that he did. At [28]-[29] the Judge addressed the Appellant’s submission that the interviewing officer failed to question him about his alleged detention, which was said to explain the absence of an earlier account. The Judge found that the Appellant’s assertion that he had not been asked direct questions about his detention was inconsistent with [5.3] and [5.4] of the screening interview. Those findings must be read together with [24]–[25], where the Judge examined the Appellant’s evidence in cross‑examination concerning his failure to mention the detentions, the inconsistencies within his accounts, and the reasons for rejecting his explanation on this issue. When the decision is read as a whole, it is clear that the Judge considered the screening interview, the substantive interview, the witness statement, and the Appellant’s oral evidence, and made findings that took all of that material into account.

26. I turn to the final element of the second ground of appeal, the issue of whether the Judge conflated the basis of claim when considering whether the interviewing officer appropriately explored the issues raised by the Appellant in the screening interview. I reject the assertion that the Judge conflated the general discrimination faced by the Appellant and his family, with the basis of the Appellant’s protection claim- that as a supporter of HDP it was imputed that he also supported PKK. The Judge’s reasoning at [25] records the Appellant’s inconsistent evidence when asked in cross‑examination to explain the disparity between his answer at question 54 of the substantive interview and his subsequent witness statement. Those inconsistencies were open to the Judge to find, and he was entitled to conclude that the explanations advanced were evasive and implausible. The interview sequence supports the Judge’s analysis. Questions 48 and 49 asked the Appellant whom he feared in Turkey, and he stated that he feared the police and soldiers because he is Kurdish. At question 53, the interviewing officer returned to the Appellant’s fear of the police and asked why the police believed him to be associated with the PKK. The Appellant replied “it was misunderstood during the phone call, I have no relation with the PKK but since we are Kurdish, people are looking at us like we were members of PKK.” At question 54 the Appellant is asked whether anyone was ever violent or threatened him because of this. The Appellant responds by saying, “it wasn’t physical violence but to scare us they outcasted us and call us terrorists and PKK members but I can’t say we faced physical violence.” In context, references to “this” and “they” include reference to the police because the interviewing officer was asking the Appellant whether anyone had used violence against him.

27. I therefore find that the Appellant has not established that the Judge failed to adequately analyse the evidence and interview responses, and conflated the basis of claim.

Ground 3 - Error of law by drawing adverse inferences from failure to answer questions that were
not asked

28. Mr Hawkins submitted that ground 3 mirrored ground 2, namely that the Appellant had not been asked clear questions during his substantive interview. He argued that the Appellant’s answers at questions 37 and 38 indicated a lack of understanding which the interviewing officer failed to identify or explore. On that basis, it was said that the Judge erred at [16] by drawing an adverse inference from the Appellant’s failure to answer questions which had not been put to him.

29. I accept that the interviewing officer should have clarified the Appellant’s responses to questions 37 and 38, as it appears that he did not understand those questions. However, I am not satisfied that the error identified at [16] is material. The Judge did not reject the Appellant’s account on this basis alone. At [17] and [19], the Judge addressed the inconsistencies in the Appellant’s accounts concerning his family’s political activities and the absence of supporting evidence demonstrating continued political activity in the United Kingdom. As set out above, the Judge attached significant weight to the inconsistencies regarding whether the Appellant had been detained and whether he had been physically harmed. At [26], the Judge provided a further, detailed explanation for rejecting the Appellant’s account of detention and the inconsistent evidence relating to the alleged harm to his wife and children. I am satisfied that the error at [16] does not undermine these other credibility findings because these are not issues that are factually linked. Those findings are sufficient to support the Judge’s conclusion that the Appellant failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that he was involved with HDP to any significant degree or that he experienced the treatment he described.

30. It follows that the Appellant has failed to establish that the Judge’s decision is infected by a material error on a point of law.

Notice of Decision

The decision of the First-tier Tribunal contains no material error of law and accordingly stands.

H.Athwal

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

22 December 2025