Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: UI-2025-004360
PA/56299/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision and Reasons Promulgated

On 24th of November 2025

Before

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge MANUELL

Between

B B
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Heard at Field House
On 14 November 2025

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr M West, Counsel
(instructed by Gordon and Thompson Solicitors)
For the Respondent: Mr B Hulme, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS

1. Permission to appeal was granted in part only by First-tier Tribunal Judge Dainty on 17 September 2025 against the decision to dismiss the Appellant’s asylum appeal made by First-tier Tribunal Judge Hanley in a decision and reasons dated 28 May 2025.

2. The Appellant, a national of Nepal, was born on 19 March 1998. He claimed to be a sur place refugee because of his involvement with the Communist Party of Nepal (Bastola faction). The Appellant claimed to have become active in the party in 2017. He entered the United Kingdom on 11 June 2022 as a seasonal worker. The Appellant said his family home was subsequently raided by the authorities and by opposition parties. Threats were made to kill him. He claimed asylum on 5 September 2022. His claim was refused on 14 January 2024. No part of his story was accepted by the Respondent

3. Judge Hanley stated at [61] onwards of his decision: “In my judgment there is nothing in the Appellant’s history or circumstances to indicate that he has any profile that would attract continued interest by the authorities, even if it were the case [which I do not accept] that he had some previous low-level involvement with one of the Communist Party splinter groups. Weighing all the evidence in the round, reflecting on the credibility concerns identified above, I have reached the conclusion to the lower standard that the Appellant’s core account is not credible, and I reject it. I have not commented on every individual piece of evidence but endeavoured to focus on the significant material. Drawing on my above factual findings and observations on the evidence, I conclude to the lower standard that the Appellant is not at risk of persecution on return to Nepal.” (No Article 8 ECHR claim was pursued.)

4. The Appellant appealed to the Upper Tribunal, contending that there were material errors of law. Two grounds were raised, namely: (1) arguable error by the Judge in his failure to make a finding on the core feature in the protection appeal; and (2) arguable error by the Judge in his consideration of the country background evidence.

5. Permission to appeal was granted by Judge Dainty in the following terms:

“Under ground 2 it is averred that the consideration of the country background evidence was flawed in that the Home Office, Country Policy and Information Note Nepal: Political affiliation Version 1.0 published on November 2023 has been misinterpreted as it had been relied upon as the basis for the proposition that the group in question was considered a criminal organisation but the following paragraph to the one cited by the Judge states that that designation was lifted in 2021 (which was before the Appellant came to the UK in 2022).

“Ground 1 is not arguable in my view – the Judge gave a full credibility analysis with reasons and gave reasons for findings the raids had not occurred (albeit that those reasons are infected by the error in ground 2). For completeness it is not arguable that the reference to sufficiency of protection infected the credibility analysis.

“Ground 2 is an arguable error of law.”

6. The Respondent’s rule 24 notice was in the following terms:

“The Respondent opposes the Appellant’s appeal. In summary, the Respondent will submit inter alia that the Judge of the First-tier Tribunal directed himself appropriately. The Judge’s decision should be read as a whole, it being a comprehensive rejection of the claim for want of credibility. The background of the Appellant’s claim is to have become involved in the Communist Party in 2019. [Note: in fact the Appellant gave 2017 as the date.] This being the same year it was declared a criminal group by the Nepalese authorities. In referring to the absence of action by the authorities the Judge is considering the CPIN Nepal Political affiliation in this context. Whilst the Judge does state that the ability of the Appellant to pass through the airport unhindered in 2022, it is submitted that the issue in play was whether the Appellant was of interest to the authorities at that time. Regard is had to the evidence given by the Appellant at [17] where he accepted that the authorities would not have allowed him to pass through if he were wanted. On that basis, the findings made by the Judge that the Appellant was not wanted is borne out in the evidence of the Appellant, and that any subsequent legalisation of the Communist Party further adds support to the finding that he would not be at risk on return. There is no material error.”

7. Mr West for the Appellant relied on the grounds of appeal. He submitted that the appeal was confined to a narrow point, namely the Judge’s misunderstanding of the country background evidence, and failure to take account of paragraph 11.2.3 of the Nepal CPIN November 2023 which showed that the Communist Party had been legalised. As this was an asylum claim, any such error was significant, and infected the credibility assessment on which the appeal turned, as the grant of permission to appeal showed. He asked that the error of law appeal should be allowed, the decision set aside and the appeal reheard in the First-tier Tribunal.

8. Mr Hulme for the Respondent relied on the Rule 24 notice and submitted that the contentions on behalf of the Appellant were insufficient to warrant setting the decision aside. Even if the Judge had misunderstood some of the country background evidence it could make no difference as the Appellant had agreed that he would not have been able to leave Nepal on his own passport if he were of interest to the authorities. There was no arrest warrant. Permission to appeal had been limited. Any error of law was not material. The appeal should be dismissed.

9. In reply, Mr West referred to Detamu [2006] EWCA Civ 604. The test for immateriality of an error of law was set at a high bar. The Judge’s error could or might have made a difference to his assessment of credibility. The Appellant’s view of leaving Nepal on his own passport was not a legal concession. The Judge’s decision should be set aside.
10. The Tribunal reserved its decision, which now follows. The Tribunal finds that there was no material error of law in Judge Hanley’s decision. The impugned paragraph of Judge Hanley’s decision is as follows:

“58. The appellant’s departure on his own passport through an international airport is another indication that he is of no interest to the authorities. The appellant attempts to deal with that problem by claiming that there was no arrest warrant for him. However, having had regard to section 11.2[.2]in the CPIN, the country material indicates that the authorities regard the Communist Party of Nepal (CPN Maoist-Chand) and the groups splitting from it (including the appellant’s group) as criminal organisations. In the context of the steps being taken by the authorities against these organisations, the lack of action against the appellant tends to undermine the credibility of the claimed raids on his family home.”

11. The relevant sections of the CPIN are as follows:

“11.2.2 The party was declared a criminal group by the Nepali government in March 2019 for its involvement in politically-motivated violence, including a bomb blast at a telecommunications company which killed a civilian. A special task force led by security agencies was created to monitor the groups cadres and leaders. In February 2021, it was reported that according to Home Ministry officials, more than 2,000 leaders and cadres of the Chand-led party had been arrested and more than 135 were in jail.

“11.2.3 The USSD Country Report on Terrorism 2021, covering events during that year, noted that on 5 March 2021 the Government of Nepal and the CPN (Maoist-Chand) ‘… signed a historic peace agreement committing both sides to peacefully resolve their differences through future political talks. Following the agreement, the Government of Nepal lifted its ban on the group and ceased to investigate and arrest members.”

12. The suggestion that a very experienced Judge dealing with a familiar type of claim from Nepal was unaware of section 11.2.3 of the Nepal CPIN is an unlikely one. Indeed, Judge Hanley expressly referred to section 11.2.4 at [53] of his decision, and to section 11.2.2 at [58]. He is thus hardly likely to have ignored the intervening paragraph. The general point which Judge Hanley was making in [58] of his decision is that as the Communist Party in its various guises was illegal in Nepal for most of the period of the Appellant’s claimed adherence, the lack of action taken against him during that period is less than credible.

13. Indeed, section 11.2.3, the legalisation of the Communist Party in 2021, makes the Appellant’s claims even less credible. There could be no plausible reason for his family home to be visited in connection with his alleged political activities after March 2021, which activities the Judge had found were a fiction in any event.

14. Judge Hanley addressed the Appellant’s credibility in detail at [48] onwards of his decision, under the self-explanatory subheading “Credibility”. Although the Judge did not specifically enumerate them, at least 8 significant adverse credibility factors were identified, as follows:

(i) Evasive evidence about threats;
(ii) Inconsistent evidence about contact with father;
(iii) Absence of information about being the subject of official enquiries;
(iv) Declared intention to return to Nepal;
(v) Doubtful Communist Party membership card (in English);
(vi) Doubtful Municipality letter (also in English);
(vii) Departure from Nepal on own passport; and
(viii) Absence of sur place activity since arrival

15. If for the purposes of the error of law analysis it were accepted that Judge Hanley was mistaken if he thought that the Communist Party was still an illegal organisation in 2022, i.e., at the time the Appellant left Nepal to come to work in the United Kingdom, it is difficult to see how that could or might have affected his credibility assessment. The 8 points set out above are all weighty. The Appellant had agreed in his evidence the perfectly obvious point that he could not have left Nepal from its international airport on his own passport if he were of interest to the authorities. The fact that by the time the Appellant left Nepal after making well organised, lawful departure arrangements the Communist Party was legal (and that investigations into its members had ceased) plainly undermines his claim that his family home was raided: why would his home be raided (a) after his departure and (b) when his claimed party was lawful?

16. Perhaps more pertinently, such points are themselves largely if not wholly irrelevant, as Judge Hanley’s primary finding was that the Appellant was never a Communist Party adherent. Thus any error about the standing of the Communist Party was immaterial. It could not have had any impact on the Judge’s credibility assessment. The Judge would inevitably have arrived at the same conclusion: see Detamu (above).

17. The Tribunal concludes that the ground of appeal raised is not made out. The Judge’s decision was sufficiently reasoned. Any error of law was not material. The onwards appeal must be dismissed.

DECISION

The appeal to the Upper Tribunal is dismissed.

There was no material error of law in the First-tier Tribunal’s decision and reasons, which stands unchanged.

Signed Dated 19 November 2025

R J Manuell
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Manuell