Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-005648
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/58708/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 27th of March 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DOYLE

Between

HC
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr S Winter, counsel, instructed by Latta & Co Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr M Diwnycz, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Melville Street, Edinburgh, on 17 March 2026

Order Regarding Anonymity

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.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. I make an anonymity direction because this appeal arises from the appellant’s protection claim.
2. This is an appeal by the Appellant against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Fox, dated 22/06/2025, which dismissed the Appellant’s appeal on all grounds.
Background
3. The Appellant is a citizen of Sierra Leone. He claimed asylum in the UK on 14/02/2022. The Respondent refused the Appellant’s application on 03/10/2023.
The Judge’s Decision
4. The Appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. On 22/06/2025 First-tier Tribunal Judge Fox (“the Judge”) dismissed the Appellant’s appeal.
5. The Appellant lodged grounds of appeal, and, on 18/12/2025, Upper Tribunal Judge Kebede granted permission to appeal. She said
1. The appellant, a national of Sierra Leone, appealed against the respondent’s decision to refuse his asylum and human rights claim. First-tier Tribunal Judge Fox dismissed the appeal.
2. Arguably the judge erred in law by proceeding on a misunderstanding of the evidence, in so far as he relied on a purported inconsistency between two supporting letters, at [18] and [19], as to the appellant’s position in the APC when there was in fact no such inconsistency, since the position of National Secretary General in the second letter referred to the author of the letter rather than the appellant. Arguably that in turn led to the judge having concerns about the authors of the letters and doubting their identity, when their ID documents had otherwise been produced, as referred to at [37].
3. Whilst it may ultimately be found that nothing material arises from this, when considering the other matters of concern set out in the judge’s decision, it is at least arguable at this stage that the judge’s adverse credibility finding was flawed.
4. All grounds may be argued.
The Hearing
6. For the appellant, Mr Winter moved the grounds of appeal. He adopted the terms of the rule 25 response, and placed emphasis on the first ground of appeal. Although there are three grounds of appeal, Mr Winter only formally moved the 2nd and 3rd grounds of appeal.
7. Mr Winter took me to [18] to [25] of the Judge’s decision. He told me that at [18] and [19] the Judge finds an inconsistency between two letters. He told me that, there, the Judge confuses the position of the author of one of the letters with the appellant’s own position within the same political party. He reminded me that the respondent concedes that, there, the Judge makes an error. The dispute between the parties is whether or not that error is material.
8. Mr Winter told me that the Judge’s findings are contradictory and unsafe. He told me that the errors the Judge made at [18] and [19] (where he confused the job title of the letter writer with the appellant’s job title) infects the entirety of the Judge’s fact finding. Mr Winter at least implied that the Judge had confused himself about the authenticity of the two letters, and carries that mistake and confusion through his fact finding and his credibility assessment.
9. Mr Winter asked me to set the decision aside and to remit this case to the First-tier Tribunal to be determined of new.
10. For the respondent, Mr Diwnycz resisted the appeal. Mr Diwnycz relied on the respondent’s rule 24 note and said that the grounds of appeal identify an error of law, but that error of law is not material. Mr Diwnycz told me that the Judge carried out a careful assessment of all of the evidence before finding that the appellant was neither a credible nor a reliable witness. Mr Diwnycz reminded me that credibility was a question for the Judge at first instance. Mr Diwnycz told me that the Judge considered all of the evidence before reaching his conclusions.
11. Mr Diwnycz told me that the Judge carried out a holistic assessment of each strand of evidence and then reached conclusions well within the range of reasonable conclusions available. Mr Diwnycz asked me to dismiss the appeal and allow the decision to stand.
Analysis
12. The Judge draws a clear focus on the determinative issues in the appeal at [13] and [14] of the decision, where he says
13. A proportion of the Appellant’s account is accepted. There are critical and material elements that are central to his account that have not been accepted and have a direct bearing upon his credibility.
14. These elements are in relation to his two (2) claimed arrests; the treatment claimed he received while detained; his release on bail from the first arrest; his escape from custody during the second arrest; leaving the country to come to the UK; and the bona fides of the Honourable Jalloh. If he is able to satisfy me as to his credibility on these elements his appeal will succeed.
13. It is now a matter of agreement that at [18] and [19] the Judge makes a mistake and find an inconsistency when comparing two letters, where there is no inconsistency.
14. The Judge starts [20] of the decision by saying
These inconsistencies mitigate against the credibility of the elements referred to in paragraph 14 above
15. The Judge has made a mistake, but the mistake is not material because it does not go to the heart of the decision in the appellant’s appeal.
16. The central reasoning for the Judge’s decision can be found in his fact finding between [23] and [31] of the decision. The Judge finds that the appellant is not credible because the help that he had from the Honourable Jalloh is crucial to his claim. The appellant insists that the Honourable Jalloh is a fellow member of APC. That crucial element of the appellant’s claim falls apart because the Judge finds in fact that the Honourable Jalloh is a member of SLPP, the party the appellant claims to fear.
17. In his findings of fact, the Judge highlights inconsistencies in the appellant’s evidence and explains fully why he finds the appellant to be neither a credible nor a reliable witness. Credibility is primarily for the Judge at first instance.
18. If [18] and [19] of the decision are removed, the Judge’s decision is still sustainable and complete.
19. The Judge misunderstood the two letters he refers to at [18] and [19] and made a mistake there. The decision contains an error of law, but that error of law is not material because, if [18] and [19] are removed from the decision, the decision still withstands challenge.
21. The second and third grounds of appeal were not expanded on. The second and third grounds of appeal relate to the burden and standard of proof.
22. At [6] and [7] the Judge succinctly summarises the area of dispute between the parties. At [10] and [11] the Judge correctly narrates the burden and standard of proof. Between [20] and [31] the Judge manifestly applies the guidance that he gave himself at [10] and [11].
23. A fair reading of the decision demonstrates that the Judge was aware of the correct burden and standard of proof throughout his decision. A fair reading the decision demonstrates that the Judge applied the correct burden and standard of proof. The second and third grounds of appeal are without merit.
24. The decision does not contain a material error of law. The Judge’s decision stands.
DECISION
The appeal is dismissed. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 22 June 2025 stands.

Signed Paul Doyle Date 25 March 2026
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Doyle