Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-003974
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/55666/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
13th August 2026

Before

DEPUTY CHAMBER PRESIDENT PLIMMER

Between

XL
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Cox, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr Mullen, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Melville Street, Edinburgh, on 12 August 2026

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 is a citizen of China. This is a re-making decision, following an earlier Upper Tribunal (‘UT’) decision dated 22 February 2026, which set aside a First-tier Tribunal (‘FTT’) decision dated 19 April 2025 (‘the 2025 FTT decision’), dismissing the appellant’s appeal on asylum and human rights grounds.
2. I have continued the anonymity order made by the FTT, as the requirements under the Refugee Convention in this particular case outweigh the demands of open justice. No party sought to argue otherwise.
Background
3. The appellant arrived in the United Kingdom (‘UK’) as far back as 2007. In a decision dated 6 May 2011, the FTT found that her claimed account including harassment by the authorities after the birth of her child, the death of her husband and the imprisonment of her father were fabricated and her appeal was dismissed on asylum and human rights grounds (‘the 2011 FTT decision’). However, in a decision dated 3 March 2023 the National Referral Mechanism accepted the appellant to be a victim of modern slavery in China and in the UK up to the end of 2007 for the specific purpose of forced sex work.
4. On 10 May 2023 the appellant made further submissions relying upon her sur place activities i.e. her practice of Falun Gong in the UK. The respondent refused her claim for asylum in a comprehensive decision letter dated 14 February 2024, which led to the now set aside 2025 FTT decision.
Hearing
5. Mr Mullen relied upon a recently submitted outline of the SSHD’s updated position. It was accepted on behalf of the SSHD that the appellant is entitled to international protection. Mr Mullen offered succinct but comprehensive reasons for this. The SSHD accepted: the appellant had provided detailed cogent evidence of practising Falun Gong in public and supporting documentation from the Falun Dafa Association UK; the Country policy and information note: Falun Gong, China, November 2025 (‘the CPIN’) corroborates the appellant’s claim that she is at risk upon return to China; the combination of independent corroboration of the appellant’s practice, attendance at Falun Gong events and evidence that the Chinese authorities target Falun Gong practitioners globally suggest the appellant may have come to the notice of the Chinese authorities, and in addition; the appellant would be willing to practice Falun Gong openly on return to China but would not do so because of the risk of serious harm involved.
6. At the hearing I explained that I accepted the SSHD’s concession and would be allowing the appeal. This decision briefly records the reasons for this.
Decision
7. This appeal is governed by s.32 of NABA 2022 and the relevant questions to be determined are set out in JCK (s.32 NABA 2022) Botswana [2024] UKUT 00100. Applying those questions to the matters accepted in this case, I make the following findings:
(i) Taking the appellant’s claim at its highest, there is a Convention reason of imputed political opinion – see LL (Falon Gong – Convention Reason – Risk) China CG [2005] UKAIT 00122 at [28] and LW (China) v SSHD [2012] EWCA Civ 519.
(ii) The appellant in fact fears persecution for that Convention reason. The SSHD was correct to accept the appellant is a committed and genuine Falon Gong practitioner who has probably already come to the attention of the Chinese authorities. The acceptance of those matters was appropriate notwithstanding the adverse findings in the 2011 FTT decision. Much has happened since then including the 2023 acceptance that the appellant was a victim of trafficking and the provision of cogent corroborating evidence relating to the appellant’s Falon Gong practice.
(iii) It is reasonably likely the appellant would be persecuted for that Convention Reason upon return to China – see the COIS and LL. In addition, as accepted by the SSHD, the appellant would not practice Falon Gong activities because of her well-found fears of persecution.
(iv) There would not be sufficient protection available and internal relocation would not be available because persecution emanates from the Chinese state.
8. The SSHD’s concession was correctly made and I accept it. It follows that she has a well-founded risk of persecution for a Convention Reason if returned to China.
Decision
The appellant’s removal will breach the Refugee Convention and her human rights. I allow her appeal on all grounds.

DCP Plimmer
Deputy Chamber President Plimmer

12 August 2026