Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-005821
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/03208/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 16th April 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BARTLETT

Between

FA
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Anjum
For the Respondent: Ms Ahmed

Heard at Field House on 1 April 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. The appellant made an application for protection which was rejected by the respondent. The appellant appealed that refusal to the First-tier Tribunal who refused the appellant’s appeal in a decision promulgated on 31 August 2025 (the “Determination”).
2. The First-tier Tribunal refused to grant permission to appeal. The Upper Tribunal granted permission to appeal in a grant dated 27 January 2026 which set out:
Arguably the Judge gives his main reasons for disbelieving the appellant and dismissing the appeal at paragraph 11 of the Decision and Reasons. Ground 1 contends that this finding is based on a misreading of the evidence. I find it easier to accept that the finding is crucial than I do that the finding is wrong but the argument needs to be heard.
The other grounds are connected to ground 1 and I give permission to argue them but it is less clear that they any faults are material if the adverse credibility finding stands.
3. The Grounds of appeal are as follows:
a. ground 1 - error in the assessment of credibility
b. ground 2 - error in the treatment of documentary and supporting evidence
c. ground 3 - error in the assessment of internal relocation and sufficiency of protection
d. ground 4 - error of law in the Article 3 ECHR assessment regarding medical evidence. This was not pursued at the hearing today.
e. ground 5 - error in the Article 8 ECHR assessment.
Submissions
4. Mr Anjum and Ms Ahmed made oral submissions. Mr Anjum stated that the appellant no longer relied on ground 4 and that his main submission was ground one and the assessment of credibility; the other grounds stood or fell with the credibility assessment.
Decision
Ground one – error in the assessment of credibility
5. The appellant’s submission is that the judge materially erred in finding the appellant’s account not credible based on an inconsistency regarding his first encounter with the Taliban. It is submitted that the judge misinterpreted the evidence and conflated the respondent’s refusal letter with the appellant’s evidence. He also submits that there was incorrect translation by an interpreter.
6. In [8] the Judge refers to the appellant’s witness statement and states “The A claims that he first came across the Taliban when the Imam visited his father.”
7. At [11] of the determination, which sets out the main credibility assessment, the Judge sets out “I did not find the A to be credible because he stated initially that he first encountered the Taliban when they visited his shop, however he also stated that he first encountered them when his father was visited by the Taliban“
8. The appellant’s witness statement at [3] sets out “I would like to make it clear that in interview I have stated that I met Taliban initially when they used to come at my brother's shop to grab the food while I was assisting him in his business but the interpreter was Urdu speaking and he did not understand my accent and he interpreted it differently. I have provided the letter of Tehrik-e Taliban (TTP) dated 19/3/21 as a proof of Taliban visited our Imam and gave this letter to him.”
9. At question 48 of the appellant’s asylum interview he was asked “when did you first receive any contact from the Taliban?” The appellant's response was “when they set our shop on fire, we filed an FIR against them and then I went to Swabi, it was on the 20th or 21st of March they came and spoke to the mosque’s Iman and then the Iman came to my father.”
10. I find that there is a clear and undeniable inconsistency between the appellant's witness statement and his answer in the asylum interview. I note that the appellant's witness statement sought to explain the differences and it is for the judge to decide this issue. This is exactly what the Judge did and the Grounds are nothing more than a disagreement with the Judge’s findings.
11. The Determination sets out a number of reasons for the Judge’s adverse credibility assessment of the appellant which go beyond the issue of when he first encountered the Taliban and include the following:
a. [12] The appellant was not credible regarding the purpose of his visit to the United Kingdom
b. [12] the appellant delayed claiming asylum
c. [12] there was no direct evidence that the Taliban are interested in the appellant
d. [12] the evidence regarding the Taliban burning down the shop is speculative
e. [13] there were no supporting statements from the individuals who were said to have received the documents
f. [13] there was no context to the photos of the shop;
g. [15] he was inconsistent about how he came across the documents that he is relying on.
12. It is clear that the Judge carried out an assessment of all the evidence and considered all the evidence when making his findings. There is no error of law in the credibility assessment.
13. In light of my findings in this regard, all the other grounds of appeal fail given Mr Anjum’s concession at the hearing. However, and for completeness, I will deal with them below.
Ground 2 - error in the treatment of documentary and supporting evidence
14. This ground criticises the Determination for not providing a reasoned analysis of the documents content or weight.
15. I refer to the SPT Practice Statement on Written Reasons at paragraph 9 “As an expert tribunal, the First-tier Tribunal will generally be taken to be aware of the relevant authorities within the jurisdiction being exercised, and to be applying those cases without the need to refer to them specifically, unless it is clear from the language of the decision that they have failed to do so. The Upper Tribunal will not readily assume that a tribunal has misdirected itself merely because every step in its reasoning is not fully set out in its decision”
16. Taking into account the Determination as a whole and the above guidance I consider that the First-tier Tribunal has assessed the documents correctly and considered them in the round applying Tanveer Ahmed v SSHD [2002} UKIAT 00439.
17. There is no error of law in the assessment of the documents.
Ground 3 - Error in the assessment of internal relocation and sufficiency of protection
18. At [13] The judge found that the appellant “was able on his own to remain the country for over a year before his departure, this suggest that it is possible for him to relocate in another part of the country”. In addition, the Judge found at [15] that the appellant was not credible and not at risk.
19. It has not been identified to me any other circumstances that were argued before the First-tier Tribunal that would have made internal relocation unreasonable. In a similar vein, it is has not been identified that there were reasons to find that there was insufficient state protection given that the appellant’s claim to fear the Taliban was not credible.
20. Ground 3 does not disclose an error of law.
Ground 5 - Error in the Article 8 assessment
21. The grounds set out that the judge erred by ignoring the appellant’s protection based evidence, failed to consider the appellant's mental health and did not carry out a proportionality assessment. However, I have not been referred to any evidence which the judge failed to consider in making this assessment. The judge is only obliged to consider matters that are raised with him and the appellant has failed to establish that he did not do this. The remainder of the submission is nothing more than a disagreement with the Judge’s assessment.
22. Ground 5 does not disclose an error of law.
Notice of Decision
The Decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 31 August 2025 did not contain a material error of law. The appeal is dismissed.

Judge Bartlett

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

9 April 2026