Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-004902
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/04568/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 15th of April 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE McWILLIAM

Between

MM
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr M West, Counsel instructed by KMT Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms J Isherwood, Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 26 March 2026

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant is a citizen of Egypt. His date of birth is 22 November 1992.
2. The Appellant arrived in the UK on 21 December 2022 was granted entry clearance to seek medical treatment in the UK.
3. The Appellant says that he is at risk on return to Egypt. He applied for asylum on 16 August 2023. This was refused on 7 October 2024. The Appellant appealed. His appeal was dismissed by the First -tier Tribunal (Judge Manuell). Permission to appeal was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Landes on all grounds.
4. The Appellant asserts that that he was involved in charitable work connected to a mosque in Egypt. At the time he was not aware that collecting donations in mosques is banned under Egyptian law. In late 2022 he was contacted by a government informer and told that the government was investigating individuals involved in unregulated charitable activities at mosques. This person warned the Appellant that his name had come up in connection with the investigation and that he could be in serious trouble. The Appellant was frightened that he would be accused of financing the Muslim Brotherhood which would lead to him being treated harshly by the Egyptian government without fair judicial process. His family told him that someone, they believed connected to the authorities, had come to their home asking about him. The Appellant left Egypt immediately after this. He arrived in the UK in December 2022. After he arrived his family told him that the authorities had visited their home again and that a summons had been issued against him. The Appellant was accused of financing a terrorist organisation and a warrant was issued for his arrest. The Appellant delayed making a claim for asylum because he believed that he could return to Egypt once things settled. He did not believe that his situation in Egypt was as dangerous as it turned out to be. It was not until he received confirmation from his family that an arrest warrant had been issued and that he had been sentenced to ten years imprisonment that the Appellant decided to make a claim for asylum. Additionally, he said that he had experienced confusion and disorientation which delayed his ability to make a timely claim.
5. The issue before me is whether Judge Manuell erred in law. There are five grounds of appeal. Permission was granted on all grounds; however, Mr West did not rely on grounds three, four and five. He relied on grounds one and two. Having heard oral submissions, I find that the judge materially erred in respect of ground two. There is no need for me to consider ground one. The error is material. I set aside the decision of the FtT to dismiss the Appellant’s appeal. appeal.
Ground two
6. Ground two contends that there has been procedural unfairness because the documentary evidence was inadequately considered. It is said that the judge erred in saying that the documents attracted no weight without any forensic assessment or verification attempt. The judge’s reference to “florid imitations” applies a presumption of fabrication without legal or evidential basis.
Submissions
7. The thrust of Mr West’s submissions was that the judge misapplied Tanveer Ahmed [2022] UKAIT 00439. Ms Isherwood made submissions. The Respondent’s Rule 24 response does not engage with ground two; however, Ms Isherwood said that the findings were open to the judge and, in any event, there is no material error of law when the findings are considered as a whole.
Error of Law
8. The appeal turned on credibility. The judge said that he had no hesitation in rejecting all of the Appellant’s claims.
9. The judge engaged with the documentary evidence at [27]:
“The documents which the appellant said had been sent to him from Egypt attracted no weight. Although they were said to be official court documents they were not phrased in proper legal language, but in a florid imitation. The charges were not clearly identified all tied to the statutes said to be relevant. The document dated 13 July 2023, said to be a watch list for the airport, made no sense. How would such a document be released to the lawyer for a person who had been described as a fugitive and convicted in his absence? Why alert such a fugitive to the fate which awaited him on return? That is not how state authorities operate. Back if these documents were genuine, the Appellant could have produced them to the Home Office shortly after the dates they bear, but he did no such thing. He has had ample time to procure false documents in the hope of bolstering a weak case. The Tribunal gives no weight to any of the Appellant’s documents.”
10. The judge did not refer to each document. There were five documents comprising: (1) a document purporting to be a judgement of the Damanhour Criminal Court delivered on 4 July 2023, (2) a “Request to Summon” of 24 December 2022, (3) a “Request to Attend” of 28 December 2022 and (4) a document of 13 July 2023 from the office of President of Appeal to the Foreign Ministry in which it is said that the Appellant is to be put on a watch list. The judge’s finding that the documents were not phrased in proper legal language but in “florid imitations “strongly suggests that he found that they were false. However, that was not the Respondent’s case. The issue for the judge was whether the documents were reliable applying Tanveer Ahmed. In any event, there was no evidence before the judge of the type of language used in court documents in Egypt. The judge took issue with the document of 13 July 2023 querying how it could be released to the Appellant’s lawyer because it would alert the Appellant that he is on a watch list and what “awaited him on return”. There is nothing odd about the Appellant’s lawyer having come into possession of correspondence which directly relates to his client. Moreover, the judgement delivered on 4 July 2023 confirms the travel ban/watch list under the heading, “The Court has publicly delivered the following”. This supports that the information was in the public domain and that the document of 13 July 2023 does not disclose anything that the Appellant did not already know and which was not in the public domain.
11. I take into account that there were a number of sustainable reasons given by the judge for finding that the Appellant was not credible including that he delayed making a claim for asylum and that his description of the charity for whom he said he worked was lacking in sufficient detail. The judge also queried the reason given by the Appellant for coming to the UK. However, overall, the error is material. The documentary evidence is germane to the assessment of credibility.
Notice of Decision
12. I set aside the decision of the judge. I agreed with the parties that the appeal should be remitted to the FtT for a fresh hearing. I have had regard to AEB v SSHD [2022] EWCA Civ 1512. There has been procedural unfairness as identified by the Applicant at ground 2. There will need to be substantial fact finding by the FtT as none of the findings are preserved.

Joanna McWilliam

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
7 April 2026