Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: UI-2025-004453
[PA/56065/2024]

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision and Reasons Promulgated
On 10 February 2026

Before

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge MANUELL

Between

M K
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Heard at Field House
On 30 January 2026

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr D Katani, Solicitor
(Katani & Co Solicitors)
For the Respondent: Dr S Ibisi, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS
1. Permission to appeal was granted by First-tier Tribunal Judge Elliott on 24 September 2025 against the decision to dismiss the Appellant’s asylum and human rights appeals made by First-tier Tribunal Judge Rea in a decision and reasons dated 4 September 2025.
2. The Appellant, a national of Turkey of Kurdish ethnicity born on 3 December 1979, entered the United Kingdom on 3 March 2020 as the partner of a Turkish businessperson (his wife), under the Ankara agreement. He and his wife were married in Turkey in 2012 and have two children. The marriage failed after the Appellant’s entry to the United Kingdom and the Appellant claimed asylum on 15 November 2022. His claim was refused on 8 January 2024. The Respondent accepted that the Appellant was Kurdish, Alevi and a member of the HDP, but not that he was of adverse interest to the Turkish authorities.
3. Judge Rea found that the Appellant’s asylum claim, based on his alleged fear of the Turkish government because of his political opinion, was not credible. He found that the Appellant could return to Turkey safely. Judge Rea went on to dismiss Appellant’s Article 8 ECHR claim based on his claimed family life in the United Kingdom, finding that any interference was proportionate.
4. The Appellant appealed to the Upper Tribunal, contending that there were material errors of law in the decision, principally a failure to address risk on return in accordance with country guidance.
5. First-tier Tribunal Judge Elliott’s grant of permission to appeal was in the following operative terms:
“4. The key issues the Judge considered were whether the appellant had a well-founded fear of persecution on return to Turkey and whether he was of adverse interest to the Turkish authorities. He found the appellant to lack credibility. However at [31] the Judge refers to significant credibility issues he had identified. Other than the delay in making his asylum claim, the Judge does not identify what those credibility issues were given at paragraphs [24] to [28] he did not place any, or any significant weight on the appellant’s failure to mention matters in interview or oral evidence.
“5. The Judge appears to make no findings as to whether he accepted that the appellant had a history of political activity in Turkey or whether he had previously been arrested and detained. Those are factors relevant to the assessment of risk identified in IK (returnees-records-IFA) CG (2004) UKIAT 00312 and I find it arguable that the Judge fell into error in failing to make findings that would be relevant to the risk assessment.
“6. The Judge decided that the appellant was not at risk on return as he had been able to leave Turkey using his own documents. The appellant’s evidence appears to have been that the appellant ‘now believes that there is an arrest warrant in existence’ (see [29] of the decision). The Judge concluded that he was not satisfied that the warrant existed at the time the appellant left Turkey and attached substantial weight to that in determining whether the appellant held a genuine fear of persecution. However he made no finding as to whether he accepted the appellant’s account that a warrant now exists, although he appears to have accepted the appellant’s explanation for his failure to produce evidence of its existence. It is arguable that the Judge erred in failing to make a clear finding on that issue.
“7. The Judge’s decision reveals an arguable error of law, Permission to appeal is granted on all grounds argued.”
6. There was no rule 24 notice from the Respondent however Dr Ibisi indicated that it was conceded that the decision contained material errors of law, such that it should be set aside and reheard in the First-tier Tribunal.
7. Mr Katani concurred and there was nothing he wished to add.
8. The Tribunal agreed with the parties. The Judge’s credibility analysis was deficient, difficult to follow and failed to make any clear findings on several key issues. The credibility analysis was set out between [22] and [32] of the decision. After mentioning several adverse credibility matters raised by the Respondent, to which he gave little weight, the Judge said that he gave “substantial” weight to the fact that the Appellant left Turkey on his own passport, which indicated that there was no warrant of arrest open at that time. The Appellant had, however, claimed that he believed that a warrant had been issued subsequent to his departure Turkey.
9. It might be possible to read the decision as dismissing by necessary implication that particular element of the Appellant’s claim, but there needed to be a clear finding on an issue which went directly to current risk on return. The Judge was not, of course, obliged to deal with each and every item of evidence expressly, but the claim of the existence of a warrant – whether that claim may be considered implausibly weak or plausibly strong – required proper attention and a finding one way or the other.
10. The Judge gave “substantial” adverse weight to the Appellant’s delay in raising an asylum claim. On its face that was reasonable in itself, but whether or not there had been a warrant of arrest issued since the Appellant’s departure from Turkey also required consideration as part of the Section 8 analysis.
11. The Tribunal observes that there were a number of other questions which might have informed the Judge’s adverse credibility analysis, such as (a) the fact that the Appellant expressly denied having been charged, detained and imprisoned in Turkey in his Ankara Agreement visa application, or (b) his ability to visit Russia as a tourist in 2018, but none of these was mentioned by the Judge. These questions required determination.
12. No express complaint was made about the Judge’s Article 8 ECHR findings but as the dismissal of the asylum claim formed part of the proportionality assessment, and that dismissal was defective, the Article 8 ECHR claim must also be revisited. It follows that no findings are preserved.
13. As the Article 8 ECHR appeal will be decided on the facts as at the date of the hearing, the Appellant should ensure that any further evidence is filed and served in good time.

DECISION
The Appellant’s appeal to the Upper Tribunal is allowed. There were material errors of law in the First-tier Tribunal’s decision and reasons.
That decision is accordingly set aside in its entirety. The Appellant’s appeal must be reheard in the First-tier Tribunal before any judge except Judge Rea.
The anonymity order previously made remains in force.

Signed Dated 3 February 2026

R J Manuell
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Manuell