Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-005187

First-tier Tribunal Nos: PA/64305/2023
LP/04842/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 20th of January 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHAPMAN

Between

SB
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
v

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr A. Janjua, Morden Solicitors LLP
For the Respondent: Ms E Blackburn, Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 9 January 2026

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, [the appellant] (and/or any member of his family, expert, witness or other person the Tribunal considers should not be identified) 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 (and/or other person). Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant is a national of the Democratic Republic of Congo [DRC] born on 12 May 1995. He arrived in the UK on 1 March 2022 and claimed asylum on the basis that his father was a major in the military, who was aware of the cover up of the killing of Mr Floribert Chebeya and as a consequence of which his father, mother and younger brother had been abducted by persons unknown and he feared that he too would be at risk of persecution if he returned to the DRC.
2. His asylum application was refused in a decision dated 24 November 2023. He appealed and his appeal came before First-tier Tribunal Judge Balroop for hearing on 14 August 2025.
3. In a decision and reasons issued on 10 October 2025, his appeal was dismissed, essentially on the basis that the Judge did not consider the Appellant’s claim to be credible.
4. An application for permission to appeal was made on the basis that the judge had erred materially in law:
4.1. In failing to consider core features of the Appellant’s claim and had not given reasons for his findings. In particular, it was submitted that the judge:
(i) failed to give reasons as to why the Avis de Recherche wanted notice was given little weight;
(ii) in failing to engage with the Appellant’s detailed account of his claim and
(iii) in failing to consider an affidavit from a third party, NM, corroborating the Appellant’s account.

4.2. In making irrational findings in referring to Namibia on 3 occasions when the Appellant is from the DRC and in drawing adverse inferences in relation to the Appellant’s father in the article from Forum des As.
5. In a decision by First-tier Tribunal Elliott on 6 November 2025 permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal was granted on the basis that:
“3. It is not clear from the Judge’s decision why he appears to give no weight to the Avis de Recherche poster. There is no assessment of the appellant’s oral evidence or the weight given to it, or what the Judge made of the affidavit from the appellant’s witness. It is arguable that the Judge fell into error in failing to engage with, and give reasons for rejecting, that evidence.
4. … Permission to appeal on all grounds raised is granted.”
6. There was no Rule 24 response on behalf of the Respondent. However, at the hearing before the Upper Tribunal, Ms Blackburn accepted that there was an error in the judge’s determination. She submitted that the error in ground 1 of the grounds of appeal was so profound that it was not necessary to consider ground 2 of the grounds of appeal.
Decision and Reasons
7. In light of Ms Blackburn’s helpful concession, with which I agree, I find that there are material errors of law in the decision and reasons of the First-tier Tribunal Judge. The Appellant submitted evidence specifically in support of his claim, namely the Avis de Recherche wanted notice and an affidavit from his friend, NM corroborating the Appellant’s account that his family had been kidnapped in the DRC on 18.2.22 , yet the judge failed to engage specifically with this evidence and make clear findings in respect of it, holding at [28] that:
“In accordance with QC, I have considered the article from Forum des As, the police report and the Avis de Recherche poster stating that [BD] and family were kidnapped. I do not accept that the Appellant is credible. Whilst the documents are relevant to the Appellant’s narrative, I find that the Appellant’s claim not credible and the news article internally inconsistent accordingly, I give it no weight to the documents.”
8. At no point does the judge explain why he considers the Appellant not to be credible nor why the news article is internally inconsistent so as to merit the finding of no weight being attached to this documentary evidence and I find that the judge failed to provide sustainable reasons for rejecting it. The fact the Appellant’s father is named as a suspect would appear to be a reasonable explanation for why his photograph appears next to the article in the Forum des As. There is no reference to or any finding relating to the affidavit from NM.
9. I find that these errors are material and fatally undermine the judge’s assessment of the claim and the Appellant’s credibility, as does the judge’s failure to engage in detail with the Appellant’s oral evidence.
10. I would further note that, whilst it is an acceptable practice when writing a decision and reasons to indicate, as the judge did at [14] that he had made a full written note of the evidence and submissions and that there is also an audio recording, it remains incumbent upon the judge if making an adverse credibility finding to set out the impugned evidence and to provide reasons for that finding. I find in this case the judge fell into error in not engaging with the substance and content of the Appellant’s oral evidence to make it clear why, at [29] the judge concluded that the Appellant’s claim was not credible. It was also factually erroneous and an example of poor proof reading for the judge to make reference at [29] and [31] to Namibia when the Appellant’s case has always been that he is a national of the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Notice of Decision
11. I set the judge’s decision aside in its entirety and remit the appeal for a full hearing de novo before the First-tier Tribunal, given that there will be a need for further oral evidence and a full hearing, which in light of the decision in Begum [2023] UKUT 00046 (IAC) would indicate that this would be best dealt with in the First-tier Tribunal (IAC).

Rebecca Chapman
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

14 January 2026