Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-004892
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/58464/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 16th March 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PAUL LEWIS

Between

JU
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: In person
For the Respondent: Mr. Simpson, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 5 March 2026

DECISION AND REASONS

Order Regarding Anonymity

Anonymity was ordered by the Upper Tribunal. No application to discharge was made. It remains in force in the terms below.

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.

Background
1. The appellant is a citizen of Nepal. She applied for asylum and protection in September 2022. Her claim was refused under cover of a refusal letter dated 20th March 2024. Her appeal against that decision was dismissed by the First-tier Tribunal Judge [the ‘Judge’] in a decision dated 8th September 2025.
2. The appellant claims to be at risk of return to Nepal based on her support for the restoration of the monarchy manifested through her support for a pro-monarchist political party referred to as the RPP. The appellant claimed that she was actively wanted by the authorities for her pro-monarchist support because her house had been raided and there was an arrest warrant outstanding for her. At the raid of her house, the appellant says that pro-monarchist articles which she had written were discovered underneath her bed and confiscated.
3. The absence of evidence (copies) of both the arrest warrant and articles were amongst the specific reasons the respondent refused the appellant’s claim under cover of their refusal letter at [9 (d)].
This appeal
4. The appellant appealed against the judge’s decision. Her written grounds of appeal stated:
‘My family home was raided by police, and all-important documents, including evidence of my political activities, were seized. This raid has made it impossible for me to access or present key supporting documents. The absence of documents should not count against me, given the credible explanation for their loss’.
5. Permission to appeal was granted on two grounds, summarised as:
(i) The judge drew and adverse inference from the appellant not providing the arrest warrant and article she claims to have written…, it is arguable that the judge did not take into consideration that there is not a requirement to adduce corroborative evidence.
(ii) The judge failed to consider the appellant’s explanation for not being able to obtain these documents from Nepal.
The hearing
6. As she was at the hearing before the first-tier Tribunal, the appellant is a litigant in person. The appellant was assisted by a Nepalese interpreter. At the start of this hearing, I explained to the appellant how the appeal would be conducted. I summarised the evidence and issues before the Judge and the grounds upon which permission had been granted. I asked Mr. Simpson to set out the issues in the appeal from the respondent’s perspective before inviting submissions from the appellant.
The evidence before the Judge and the Judge’s reasons
7. The appellant did not provide a witness statement or documents in support of her appeal. At the hearing, the judge took the appellant to the contents of her screening interview of 21st January 2023 and her Asylum and Interview Record [‘AIR’] of 6th February 2024 which she adopted as accurate. The paper’s disclose that:
(i) At screening interview [Q.4.1], the appellant was asked: ‘Do you have proof for this warrant?’ she replied: ‘No’.
(ii) At AIR [Q43] the appellant was asked if she could provide a copy of the of the warrant to the respondent. She replied: ‘I don’t have it here in the UK.’
(iii) At AIR [Q49] The appellant was asked if she could provide copies of the article she wrote. She replied: ‘I don’t have copies’.
8. A summary of the appellant’s evidence in cross examination was set out at [7] of the Judge’s decision. At [8] to [9], the Judge summarised the parties submissions. The judge records the appellant’s submitted ‘she has no one in Nepal to help her with documents’.
9. The appellant’s submission before the judge stands in contrast to the summary of evidence and the appellant’s accounts. At [16] the judge records that the appellant ‘does not have any of the copies of the article with her. At [21] the judge finds that the appellant ‘has a sister in Nepal and she has children, one who is at least at an age who would be able to send the documents. Shew (sic) also had a husband there before he left for Kuwait. It was also reasonable to have had the arrest warrant sent over if there is one’.
10. More generally, the Judge found at [21] and [22] the appellant to have had sympathy for and having and supported the RPP in the past but, that she was not an active sympathiser of the party.
Submissions
11. The appellant’s submissions in support of her appeal are: ‘.. I am not able to bring other documents. I cannot bring the documents all the documents which I had at my home the police took away when the house was raided and they burned them all. That is why I not able to ring the documents. I want to request for me to stay here and stay free’.
12. I asked the appellant if she wanted to develop her submission further to address specifically the grounds upon which permission was granted. She did not.
13. The respondent opposed the appeal, relying upon a short Rule 24 response and further oral submissions. The response submits that the judge reached adequate conclusions that the appellant had failed to demonstrate that she would be at risk on return. The respondent submitted that the appellant’s accounts as set out by the judge had not provided any, or any clear reason as to why the documents she referred were not available to her and had not been produced in evidence.
Discussion
14. There is no requirement that an appellant must adduce corroborative evidence. The position was set out in MAH (Egypt) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ. 216 at [85] to [87]. At [86]
…the absence of corroborative evidence can, depending on the circumstances, be of some evidential value: if, for example, it could reasonably have been obtained and there is no good reason for not obtaining it, that may be a matter to which the tribunal can give appropriate weight…’
15. It is clear that the judge did not impose a requirement of corroboration. The appellant’s answers to interview questions stood as her evidence before the judge. From those responses it is sufficiently clear that the judge found that (at least) the arrest warrant could reasonably have been obtained with the assistance of the appellant’s family in Nepal and that the appellant had not provided a good reason for not obtaining it. Although the judge did not expressly refer to the guidance in MAH above, he clearly applied it in substance.
16. The absence of documentation was not the only reason the appeal was refused. The judge took notice of background material which indicated that in general leaders, members and supporters of opposition political parties are not at real risk of persecution or serious harm from state actors. The Judge also considered that the appellant had not claimed to attend protests against the government or in support of the monarchy, nor was she known to be politically active. The appellant had not in those circumstances persuaded the judge that she would have been known to or a target to her political opposition.

Notice of Decision
The decision of the Judge does not contain an error of law. The appeal is dismissed.

Paul Lewis

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

5th March 2026