Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-004971
UI-2025-004972

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/55971/2024 PA/56526/2024
LP/12111/2024
LP/12110/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 17th of April 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WILSON

Between

OA (First Appellant)
AA (Second Appellant)
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellants
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr S Winter (Counsel)
For the Respondent: Mr A Mullen (Senior Presenting Officer)

Heard at Field House on 11 February 2026

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellants are granted anonymity.

No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the appellants, likely to lead members of the public to identify the appellants. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS

Introduction

1. The Appellants appeal against the decision of a First-tier Tribunal Judge (‘the Judge’) dated 16 September 2025 dismissing their appeals against the Respondent’s decisions dated 19 February 2024 to refuse their protection claims.

Grounds of Appeal

2. I summarise the grounds as follows:

a. Ground 1 -the Judge failed to take account of material evidence. In particular, the Bar Association identification card for a Jordanian lawyer. As a consequence, the Judge failed to properly assess the lawyer’s evidence and documents he had obtained.

b. Ground 2 - the Judge erred by placing weight on information produced by the Respondent relating to the Jordanian Penal Code. Foreign law is to be proved by expert evidence. The information produced by the Respondent cannot be said to constitute expert evidence.

Permission to Appeal

3. In a decision dated 23 October 2025, the First tier Tribunal granted Permission to appeal on both grounds.

Appellant’s Submissions

4. Mr Winter confirmed that the Appellants relied upon the grounds of appeal. Mr Winter’s oral submissions reflected the grounds of appeal, where appropriate he developed or highlighted relevant themes. Mr Winter’s oral submissions are summarised below.

5. The Appellants relied upon a letter from a Jordanian lawyer confirming the Appellants had been sentenced in absentia. A letter from the lawyer also indicates that he had obtained certain documents on behalf of the Appellants to include the document issued by the Deputy Public Prosecutor of the State Security Court dated 13 June 2022. The Jordanian lawyer sets out his methodology for obtaining the documents produced and the Judge raises no concerns about this methodology. The evidence from the lawyer was rejected, in part, because the Judge stated that the Appellants had failed to produce supporting documentation to confirm that the Jordanian lawyer was a practising lawyer [61]. However, the Appellant had produced a copy of a Jordanian bar association identification card in the name of the lawyer. Mr Winter submits that the Judge’s failure to take account of this material evidence that was before the First-tier Tribunal is an error of law.

6. In addition, if the evidence from the Jordanian lawyer is reliable then it was incumbent on the judge to give adequate reasons as to how the Appellants could have infiltrated forged, or unreliable material into the government records where there is no suggestion that the Jordanian lawyer had been involved in discreditable conduct [PJ (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] 1 WLR 42].

7. In relation to the Judge’s assessment of the documents obtained by the Jordanian Lawyer, Mr Winter relied upon Hussein and Another (Status of passports: foreign law) [2020] UKUT 00250 (IAC). This provides that foreign law is a matter of evidence, to be proved by expert evidence directed specifically to the point in issue.

8. The Judge referred to information relating to the Penal Code. That information had been taken from hyperlinks set out in the Respondent’s review. These hyperlinks cannot be said to be expert evidence and should have been afforded no weight. As such, the Judge erred in his approach when he assessed the content of the documents against the Penal Code as taken from the hyperlinks provided by the Respondent. The Judge erred when finding that inconsistencies between the documents produced and the Penal Code, as taken from the hyperlinks, undermined the reliability of the documents.

9. In terms of materiality Mr Winter submitted that the threshold was low. Mr Winter relied on Tesco Stores Ltd v Secretary of State [2012] and submitted that the correct test was whether there was a real possibility of a different decision being reached.

10. Mr Winter submitted that if the Judge had considered the copy of the Jordanian Lawyer’s bar association identification card there is a real possibility that the judge would have accepted the lawyer’s evidence and as such a real possibility that the judge would have reached a different decision. Equally, if the judge had not fallen into error in his approach to the hyperlinks of the Penal Code when assessing the documents obtained by the Jordanian Lawyer then there is a real possibility that the Judge would have accepted this evidence and as such a real possibility that the judge would have reached a different decision.

11. In response to Mr Mullen’s submission regarding a lack of detail as to how the Jordanian lawyer obtained the relevant documents, Mr Winter submitted that the methodology was set out in the Jordanian lawyer’s letter and the Judge had raised no concerns.

Respondent’s Submissions

12. Mr Mullen confirmed that there was no Rule 24 response.

13. Mr Mullen accepted that a copy of the Jordanian bar association identification card was before the First-tier Tribunal . Mr Mullen accepted that the Judge erred when he stated that the Appellants had “failed to provide supporting documentation to confirm that he is a practising lawyer as he claims to be.” Mr Mullen accepted that the ID document went some way to establish the Jordanian lawyer’s credentials.

14. However, Mr Mullen submitted that the Judge had nonetheless been entitled to afford little weight to the Jordanian lawyers evidence and the documents that it is claimed he obtained. Mr Mullen asserted that the evidence suggested a departure from the usual client and lawyer relationship where a client approaches a lawyer. Mr Mullen asserted that the Jordanian lawyer came to the Appellant’s assistance through the intervention of a friend. The Jordanian lawyer’s letter does not specify how he obtained the documents. In addition, Mr Mullen noted that the Judge had taken account of the language used by the Jordanian lawyer which suggested that the judge was taking a partisan rather than independent or neutral approach [62]. Mr Mullen submitted that, taking the factors set out above cumulatively, the Judge’s conclusion that little weight should be afforded to the evidence of the Jordanian lawyer and the documents obtained by that lawyer was sustainable.

15. Mr Mullen accepted that the Judge undertook an assessment of the consistency of the documents produced by the Jordanian lawyer against the hyperlinks to the Penal Code supplied by the Respondent [57 & 58]. It was also accepted that the Hyperlinks/internet search results provided by the Respondent did not constitute expert evidence. However, Mr Mullen submitted that the hyperlinks had been produced merely to highlight contradictions. It was submitted that the burden was on the Appellant. The implication being that it was for the Appellants to bring forward expert evidence of the relevant foreign law to support their case.

16. Mr Mullen’s overarching submission was that any error was immaterial. Given the Judge’s other credibility findings he would have inevitably come to the same conclusion. Mr Mullen gave the example of the Judge’s unchallenged findings in relation to the medical evidence which the Judge found to be inconsistent with the First Appellants’ evidence and written as if by a lay person [63-65].

Discussion

17. The Respondent accepts that the Judge erred in finding that the Appellants had failed to provide evidence in support of the Jordanian lawyer’s credentials. It is accepted that the Appellant’s had produced a copy of a Jordan Bar Association identification card in the name of the lawyer.

18. It is also accepted by the Respondent that the hyperlinks/Internet search results in relation to the Penal Code produced by the Respondent in her review and response cannot be considered expert evidence as to Jordanian law.

19. In my judgment, the Judge’s failure to identify that the Appellants had produced the Jordanian lawyer’s Bar Association identification constitutes an error of law. Firstly it is a mistake as to a material fact which could have been established, by objective and uncontentious evidence. It is undisputed that a copy of the Jordanian lawyer’s Bar Association identification card was before the First-tier Tribunal. The mistake results in unfairness to the Appellants because a lack of corroborative evidence as to the lawyer standing was, in part, why the judge concluded that little weight could be placed upon the Jordanian lawyer’s evidence and the documents he had obtained. Secondly, the Judge has given weight to immaterial matters. The absence of corroborative evidence of the Jordanian lawyer’s credentials was a fundamental reason for the judge placing little weight upon the Jordanian lawyer’s evidence and the documents he obtained.

20. I turn to the Judge’s assessment of the consistency of the documents produced by the Jordanian lawyer with the information contained within the hyperlinks relating to the Penal Code cited by the Respondent in her review [57 & 58]. I do not accept Mr Mullen’s submission that the hyperlinks/internet search results had been produced merely to highlight contradictions and that it was for the Appellants to bring forward expert evidence of the relevant foreign law to support their case. It is important to note that the Hyperlinks in relation to the Jordanian penal code were produced by the Respondent as evidence in rebuttal. In my judgement, the hyperlinks/internet search results were presented in the Respondent’s review as definitive evidence of the Penal Code as it applied in Jordan. For example relying upon hyperlinks the Respondent states in the review “Treason is actually codified under Article (110), not as suggested by detailing [sic] “Article 15”. In my judgment the Judge treated the hyperlinks/Internet search results as they were presented in the Respondent’s review, as definitive evidence of the Jordanian Penal Code. By way of example at paragraph 58 of the Judge’s decisions and reasons he states: “The respondent points out that Article 15 of the Jordanian Penal Code does not relate to treason but relates to the role of the Public Prosecutor. The respondent also notes that Treason falls under Article 110 of Penal Code No 16 of 1960 and carries a sentence of the death penalty or life imprisonment with hard labour, not five years imprisonment as stated with [sic] the documents produced by the appellants”.

21. It is accepted that foreign law is a matter of evidence, to be proved by expert evidence directed specifically to the point in issue [Hussein and Another (Status of passports: foreign law) [2020] UKUT 00250 (IAC)]. It is accepted that the Hyperlinks/Internet search results cited within the Respondent’s review do not amount to expert evidence. Accordingly, in my judgement, the Judge’s treatment of the Hyperlinks/Internet search results cited within the Respondent’s review as definitive evidence of the Penal Code as it applied in Jordan is an error of law.

22. In terms of materiality, I accept that the Judge made a number of credibility findings that are unchallenged. However, I am not satisfied that the Judge would have come to the same conclusion had he not erred. I am not satisfied that the Judge would have found that the evidence from the Jordanian lawyer and the associated documents were unreliable if he had considered the copy of the Jordanian lawyer’s Bar Association identification card that was before the First Tier Tribunal. Equally, I am not satisfied that the judge would have found that the document issued by the Deputy Public Prosecutor of the State Security Court dated 13 June 2022, was unreliable if he had not treated the Hyperlinks/Internet search results as definitive evidence of the Penal Code as it applied within Jordan. The evidence from the Jordanian lawyer and the document issued by the Deputy Public Prosecutor of the State Security Court dated 13 June 2022 form a central component of the Appellants evidence and go to the core of the Appellants’ accounts. For these reasons, I am not satisfied that the Judge would have dismissed the appeal had the Judge not erred. Accordingly, the errors of law are material.

23. I have considered Begum (Remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 46 (IAC) and the relevant Practice Direction and Practice Statement. The parties indicated that should this appeal be allowed then this matter should be remitted to the First tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing with no preserved findings of fact. I agree. Given the nature of the errors a full credibility assessment is required. Accordingly, it is appropriate to remit this appeal to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard de novo by a different judge.

Notice of Decision

24. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal contained material errors of law and is set aside. No findings of fact are preserved.

25. The appeals shall be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard de novo by a different judge.

G Wilson

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

9 April 2026