Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: UI-2025-004405
PA/56655/2023
LP/05261/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 20 November 2025

On 27th of November 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE OWENS

Between

DAA
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr Hussain, Counsel, instructed by Halliday Reeves
For the Respondent: Ms Kerr, Senior Presenting Officer

DECISIONS AND REASONS
1. The appellant appeals with permission against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal sent on 21 August 2025 dismissing his appeal against a decision dated 8 September 2023 to refuse his human rights and protection claim.
Background and Immigration history
2. The appellant is a national of Somalia born in 1998. He entered the UK on a small boat on 16 November 2021 and he claimed asylum on 19 November 2021. His claim for asylum was refused on 8 September 2023.
The positions of the parties
3. The appellant asserts that he is a member of the minority Ashraf clan from Qoriyooley about 123 km from Mogadishu. His family were farmers. Neighbours from the Hawiye majority clan tried to take his family’s land. There was an argument during which the appellant’s brother killed a member of the opposing clan. The brother immediately fled to South Africa. The appellant left his home on the same day in fear. His mother arranged for him to travel to a different village, Badoa to stay with other Ashraf clan members, but was then informed that the aggressors knew where he was, whereupon he was taken by the Ashraf clan members to stay with a different majority clan for five days before leaving Somalia. My understanding is that his claim is that he is not safe in his own village, nor in Mogadishu and also internal relocation to Mogadishu is not reasonably available to him because he is minority clan member with no family or support.
4. The Secretary of State accepted the appellant’s account of what happened in his home town as being credible but decided that sufficiency of protection and internal relocation options were open to the appellant in Mogadishu having considered the factors in MOJ & Ors (Return to Mogadishu) Somalia CG [2014] UKUT 442 (IAC). There would also be no very significant obstacles to reintegration on return to Somalia.
The decision of the First -tier Tribunal
5. The judge heard evidence from the appellant as well as oral submissions. The judge found the appellant not be to credible. The judge found that the fact that the appellant did not claim asylum despite opportunities in other countries was an indication that he does not have a well-founded fear of persecution. The judge decided that the appellant would not be a person of interest and that the appellant would receive protection in Mogadishu. The judge then found that the appellant has family and support from his clan in Mogadishu and that support from the Rahaywen clan would be available on return. The judge round that the appellant would not face a risk of serious harm on return and that there would be no disproportionate interference with his private life to remove him from the UK.
Grounds
6. The judge’s reasoning is flawed by way of the following:
Ground 1 - The judge’s approach to credibility was flawed.
At [13] the judge went behind the respondent’s concession that the appellant’s account of being targeted by the Hawiye clan was credible. At [13] the judge found the appellant not to be credible without providing adequate reasons. This should have been put to the appellant.
The judge’s consideration of s8 was also flawed.
Ground 2 - The judge gave inadequate reasons for his finding that the appellant has family in Mogadishu and misapplied the Country Guidance in respect of internal relocation. The judge‘s view of the appellant’s credibility infected his findings on internal relocation.
Grant of permission
7. Permission was granted by a judge of the First-tier Tribunal on all grounds on 21 September 2025. The permission judge’s view is that the judge’s position on credibility was confused, that the s8 credibility findings were arguably flawed and that the decision is difficult to read.
8. A rule 24 response sought to defend the position, stating that the judge’s negative credibility findings were in relation to future risk.
General Observations
9. I indicated to both representatives that I had some concerns about the evidence before the First-tier Tribunal. The appellant’s asylum interview was not included in the respondent’s bundle and was uploaded separately. Ms Kerr agreed that the full interview did not appear to have been uploaded because the interview ends half way through a question and the final sections of the interview have not been completed. The interview appears to end when the appellant is asked why the Rahaywen clan with whom he stayed with for five days in Badoa could not protect him.
10. Another initial point I make at the outset, is that it is difficult to discern from reading the decision what the judge’s findings were in respect of the appellant’s individual circumstances. It is not clear for instance whether the judge accepts that the appellant is at risk from the Hawiye clan in his home area and where he believes the appellant went to after he fled his home.
11. After discussing the appeal with the parties, Ms Kerr did not attempt to strenuously defend the decision, although she did not formally concede the appeal.
Discussion
12. I am satisfied that the judge has erred in his approach to credibility. At [13] the judge starts by making negative credibility findings as a result of the appellant’s failure to claim asylum in countries “en route” to the UK. There are numerous errors at [13]. Firstly, the judge unambiguously states that the appellant’s failure to claim asylum in the countries through which he travelled is an indication of a person who does not have a well founded fear of persecution. This appears to go behind the respondent’s acceptance in the refusal letter that the appellant’s account of the events in Somalia which led him to flee are credible. This should have been the starting point when assessing credibility. This means that it is not clear to the reader whether the judge has gone behind the respondent’s concession. This is a fundamental error.
13. This error is compounded by the judge’s failure to have regard to the clear caselaw (JT (Cameroon) v SSHD [2008] EWCA Civ 878) which says that s8 considerations should not form the starting point of a credibility assessment but should be considered in the round in the light of all of the evidence. The Home Office’s own guidance is that the behaviours specified in s8 are not determinative. In any event, the appellant had already been accepted by the respondent to be credible, the first question for the judge was whether the appellant was at risk on return in Mogadishu. The appellant’s evidence was that he was not safe in Mogadishu because it is now run by the Hawiye clan. The judge’s s8 finding is immaterial to this issue. This is a question of background evidence.
14. Further, the appellant’s evidence in his witness statement was that he did not claim asylum in Italy because he was not provided with any housing or support there, but that he was fingerprinted there. He said that he did claim asylum in Switzerland but he was returned to Italy. He said also tried to claim asylum in Germany but was told that he would be returned to Italy. The judge’s finding at [13] that he failed to claim asylum in in Germany and Switzerland does not explain why the judge did not accept this evidence; or appears to have been based on a misunderstanding of the appellant’s evidence. Indeed, throughout the decision there appears to be a lack of anxious scrutiny.
15. I also agree with Mr Hussain that the judge’s finding that the appellant has family in Mogadishu at [15] has not been adequately reasoned. This was not the appellant’s evidence. His evidence is was that he has no family in Mogadishu, he is from a minority clan (Ashraf) and received assistance from a majority clan for a short period of five days in a place called Badoa who gave him safe passage to leave Somalia. The decision does not explain why the judge does not accept his evidence that he does not have family in Mogadishu and his evidence that he cannot receive long term assistance from the Rahaywen clan which he gave in his witness statement.
16. This is material because MOJ states that where a returnee does not have nuclear family or close relatives in the city and is from a minority clan (who may have little to offer) there must be a careful assessment of all the circumstances.
17. I am satisfied that all of these errors are material to the outcome of the decision and that the decision should be set aside in its entirety.
Disposal
18. Both representatives agreed that because of the large number of factual findings that needed to be made, the decision should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard de novo. I am agreement with this course of action. I am satisfied that in this appeal, because of the extent of the factual findings to be made, it is appropriate to deviate from the normal course of retaining the appeal in the Upper Tribunal and to remit to the First-tier Tribunal.

Notice of Decision
1. The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error of law.
2. The decision is set aside in its entirety with no findings preserved.
3. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard de novo before a Judge other than Judge Abebrese.

Direction Regarding Anonymity – Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008
Unless and until a Tribunal or court directs otherwise, the appellant is granted anonymity. No report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify him or any member of his family. This direction applies both to the appellant and to the respondent. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to contempt of court proceedings.
Directions
1. Within 14 days of the date of this decision, the respondent is directed to file/upload to the First-tier Tribunal a complete copy of the appellant’s asylum interview.

Signed R J Owens Date 20 November 2025

Upper Tribunal Judge Owens