Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-004282

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/63251/2024
LP/13385/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 15 January 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DAYKIN

Between

M I
[ANONYMITY ORDER MADE]
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr S Paxi-Cato (instructed by Black Antelope Law)
For the Respondent: Mr K Ojo (Senior Home Office Presenting Officer)

Heard at Field House on 23 December 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant and his family members are 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 and his family members. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS

1. This is an appeal brought with permission, by the appellant against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 18 July 2025 in which the appellant’s protection appeal was dismissed.

2. The appellant claims to be at risk of persecution upon return to Bangladesh as a result of being prosecuted for murder. The appellant claims that he has been falsely accused by the victim’s uncle who is a prominent figure in the Awami League.

3. The First-tier Tribunal Judge (“the Judge”) found that this was a case of prosecution and not persecution. There was no political motivation or any other Refugee Convention reason for the prosecution, and none was claimed by the appellant (§10).

4. The Judge further found that any power the victim’s uncle’s political connections may have once afforded him has likely dissipated due to removal from power of the Awami League. There is no reason why the Bangladeshi state would be unable to protect the appellant from the uncle, in the event he retained any personal power (§11).

5. The single ground of appeal is that the Judge failed to make an assessment of the appellant’s subjective fear of persecution by reference to the second question identified in the headnote of JCK (s.32 NABA 2022) (Botswana) v SSHD [2024] UKUT 00100(IAC):

“Question 2 is whether, on the balance of probabilities, the claimant “does in fact fear” such persecution. This is the “subjective fear” test.”

6. Leading the Judge to misunderstand the appellant’s case and conclude that this was a case of prosecution not persecution. It is said that the Judge failed to have regard to the appellant’s subjective fear of political persecution.

7. I heard submissions from the representatives which are a matter of record.

8. As I explored with the representatives at the hearing, in my judgment the ground of appeal is misconceived. The reason is that in identifying that there was “no political or other impermissible motive behind the appellant’s prosecution” the Judge was properly addressing the first question identified in JCK, namely:

“Question 1 is whether, on the balance of probabilities, the claimant has a characteristic which could cause them to fear for one of the five reasons set out in the Refugee Convention. In simple terms: is there a Convention reason?”

9. The appellant did not claim to hold any political opinions himself, nor did he contend that there was any feature of his claim that would give rise to an imputed political opinion. The appellant pointed to the victim’s uncle having political influence but that does not translate into his pursuit of a case against the appellant due to the appellant’s political opinion. Mr Paxi-Cato accepted that it was difficult on the evidence to advance a convention reason.

10. Therefore, in the absence of a convention reason the Judge was not required to go on to consider the second question as to the appellant’s subjective fear because the argument falls at the first stage. The Judge was correct in those circumstances to conclude that this was a case of prosecution not persecution.

Conclusion

11. I find that there are no errors of law identified in grounds of appeal.

Notice of Decision

12. The appeal is dismissed.

13. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal stands.

E Daykin

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

8 January 2026