Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-005070
First-tier Tribunal No: PA /59493/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

2nd June 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BURNETT

Between

S.O.
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Jaisri of counsel
For the Respondent: Ms Ahmed, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 20 February 2026

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant is granted anonymity. He has made a protection claim.

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.

DECISION AND REASONS

1. The appellant appeals against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (FtT) dated 20 September 2025, who dismissed the appellant’s appeal from a decision of the respondent to a refuse a protection claim. The decision of the respondent is dated 23 March 2024.

2. Permission to appeal was granted on a limited basis by a judge of FtT on 29 October 2025. The appellant made an application to the Upper Tribunal in respect of the grounds upon which permission had been refused. An Upper Tribunal Judge refused permission to appeal on the remaining grounds of appeal on 18 November 2025.

3. The decision granting permission is this limited in scope to grounds 3 and 5 ( (iii) and (v)).

4. Permission to appeal was granted in these terms:

4. The Appellant argues that the IJ failed to properly consider his account regarding his ability to remain in Turkey for 6 months and then exit. The IJ found that this was not credible if the Appellant was on bail and wanted as claimed. However the determination failed to note the Appellant’s account that he was in hiding for the 6 months and left the country using false documents with an agent. Noting that there are limited factors considered in the credibility assessment, this finding may have been material. As such, this is an arguable error of law.

5. It is also arguable that the IJ placed too much emphasis on the screening interview whilst not fully considering the Appellant’s AIR and other evidence in the round.

Background

5. The appellant is a national from Turkey. In brief he claimed protection on the basis that he feared the authorities in Turkey due to his alleged connections to the PKK and his previous detentions. The appellant had also been involved in sur place activities in the UK. The appellant also provided some information that family members had been granted protection in the UK.

The decision of the FtT

6. The FtT dismissed the appellant’s appeal. The judge set out the appellant’s claims [11] to [21]. The judge set out the evidence from [25] to [33]. The judge made an assessment of credibility at [34] to [55]. The FtT found that the appellant’s claim, that he would be at risk lacked credibility and set out his conclusions [56] to [60]. The judge set out a summary of his findings [61] to [67].

Grounds of appeal.

7. The grounds of appeal make a number of assertions regarding the approach of the judge. I will provide a brief summary of the grounds of appeal upon which permission to appeal was granted.

8. Ground (iii) asserts that the judge did not make a decision on the basis of all the evidence. The appellant had given oral evidence, had provided two witness statements, and had had two interviews with the respondent. The grounds assert that the judge focused upon the screening interview to make blanket adverse credibility findings.

9. Ground (v) focuses upon the judge’s decision in respect of the appellant’s ability to leave Istanbul through the airport. It is argued that the findings did not take account of the appellant’s claim he was in hiding and had left through the airport using false documents.

The hearing and submissions

10. The parties made submissions which are recorded in the record of proceedings. I only intend to set out those submissions in so as far as is necessary it stating my conclusions..

Analysis and conclusions.

11. Relatively recent authority (Ullah v SSHD [2024]EWCA Civ 201, Yalcin v SSHD [2024] EWCA Civ 74, and Chowdhury v SSHD [2025] EWCA Civ 36) has emphasised that the Upper Tribunal should not rush to find an error of law simply because they would have expressed themselves differently from the First-Tier Tribunal, that the Upper Tribunal should be slow to infer that a point had not been taken into account even if not expressly mentioned, and that judicial restraint should be exercised even though not every step in the reasoning was fully set out, as the issues might be set out by inference. I have borne those principles in mind.

12. I also had in mind the Court of Appeal’s dicta in Volpi v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464 that it is not the role of an appellate court to come to its own conclusions on the evidence before the Judge. It is essential that there is appropriate judicial restraint before interfering with the decision of the expert first instance judge.

13. I have considered carefully the decision of the FtT Judge as against the grounds of appeal. I have considered the grounds together as I consider there is overlap between them.

14. The judge set out the background to the appellant’s claims [11] to [21]. This included that at [18] the judge stated that the appellant had travelled with a fake passport. At [17] the judge records that the appellant stayed in hiding with a friend and did not go out. At [38] to [40] the judge considered the various accounts the appellant had given about the passport he used to travel, including the use of a false passport. He records that this did not damage the appellant’s credibility.

15. The judge, as is clear from the above referred to the use of a fake passport on more than one occasion in the decision. The judge had set out the appellant’s claim. At [55] The judge states that the appellant had absconded from bail. Although the judge does not make specific reference to this at this juncture, that this was in respect of an accusation he was participating with a terrorist organisation(see [46]and [59]). The judge records that the police were looking for him and he did not accept the appellant would escape detection during that time. This was a finding which was open to the judge. Just because, in remaining with a friend in a house and claiming he was “in hiding”, does not mean he would escape detection. For example the appellant needed to get to his friend’s home and then leave it to get to the airport. The inference is that the appellant was in the same place for 6 months. The judge could have provided more reasons to further explain why he found it not credible the appellant would escape detection during a 6 month period, but the point is made.

16. The judge then records that the appellant was able to pass through the airport having gone through security checks at an international airport. The judge clearly formed the conclusion that the simple claim of using a fake passport does not adequately explain this. This was open to the judge on the basis of the evidence presented and to which the judge was referred in forming this assessment.

17. At [42] to [45] the judge considered the various accounts the appellant had given as to whether he was a member of HDP. This included what the judge described as his final account. It is clear to me that the judge considered the various pieces of evidence in forming his conclusions and did not lose sight of the appellant’s contentions.

18. At [46] to [51] the judge considered the appellant’s claims regarding his detentions. This included the current account of detentions, his previous account provided by his solicitor after the screening interview, and what he informed the interviewing officer at the time of the screening interview. The judge also acknowledged that the purpose of that interview was not to be a full statement of the appellant’s case. It is not correct that the judge simply referred to the screening interview and did not look at the other evidence. Mr Jasri went through the particular questions regarding detention in the screening interview (from 5.3) but the point the judge was making was that the appellant had not mentioned all the detentions by the Turkish authorities to the specific questions asked at the screening interview and this included in his brief summary. The summary is recorded at 4.1 of the screening interview. It had become three detentions set out in a response from his solicitors, and finally a detention in March 2022 was added by the appellant. The March 2022 incident was the most significant, as the judge described it, as this was the event which was stated to precipitate the appellant’s flight from Turkey [49]. The point being made was the account had significantly changed. I conclude that there is no error of law in the decision of the judge. The judge was entitled to take this into account and form an assessment. The ground is no more than a disagreement with the finding made.

19. The above are just some examples of where the judge has referred to the other evidence supplied by the appellant, as well as the screening interview. When read as a whole the judge provided adequate reasons for the decision and assessed the evidence presented.

20. I am satisfied that the grounds do not disclose a material error of law. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

Notice of Decision

Appeal dismissed
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal shall stand.

Iain Burnett

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

15 May 2026.