Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-000209
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/63552/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 19 October 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SHERIDAN

Between

RS
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr West, Counsel instructed by Gordon and Thompson Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr Simpson, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 16 October 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 is appealing against a decision of Judge of the First-tier Tribunal (“FTT”) Boyes (“the judge”) dated 10 August 2025.

2. The appellant is a citizen of Nepal who claims to face a risk of persecution on account of his political beliefs and activities as a member of the Communist Party. In May 2022 he came to the UK as a seasonal worker. He claims that in August 2022 the police raided his family home in Nepal. The following month, in September 2022, he claimed asylum. In April 2024 his claim was refused by the respondent.

The FTT decision

3. The judge did not believe the appellant. In [33] the judge described his account as fabricated. The judge gave several reasons for reaching this conclusion. These include:

a. The appellant’s claim that his house was raided was not supported by credible evidence such as the statement from the appellant’s father.

b. The appellant was able to obtain a passport and visa from the Nepalese government and able to leave the country without any problems. In [28] it is stated:

There was no issue with him obtaining the passport and visa despite his claim that he is and was at risk.

c. The appellant could not explain why there was a period of 4 years when the police did not look for him.

d. A letter purportedly from the Communist Party attracted a little weight. The reasons given for this in [31] are:

The genesis of the document is not proven and given the appellant’s claims that he is no longer in contact with his family following the earthquake it was left unexplained as to how he was in contact with his brother to obtain it or where his brother obtained it from. The letter is not signed by any individual and has not been shown to be genuine. The date of the letter, 2019, is also unexplained by the appellant and the appellant was not able to say why he had such a letter in 2019 given he stated that there was no harassment of him from the police as he did not ever come to their attention.

e. Objective evidence indicates that in general supporters and members of opposition political parties do not face a risk.

Grounds of appeal and submissions

4. There are three grounds of appeal. However, at the outset of the hearing Mr West stated that the first ground was abandoned. Mr Simpson stated that he accepted that grounds 2 and 3 identified an error but not that the errors were material.

5. The two grounds pursued by the appellant are:

a. The judge made a mistake of fact in [31] by finding that the letter from the Communist Party was not signed.

b. The judge erred in [28] by drawing an adverse inference from the appellant obtaining a passport and visa despite being at risk.

The test for deciding if an error of law is material

6. It is well established that for an error to be found immaterial it must be the case that the outcome would necessarily, or inevitably, have been the same. In Secretary of State for the Home Department v AJ (Angola) [2014] EWCA Civ 1636 the relevant question was put as follows: it is whether 'it is clear on the materials before [the FTT] any rational tribunal must have come to the same conclusion'. This formulation of the test was recently approved by the Court of Appeal in Osei-Bonsu v Secretary of State for The Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 1304.

Error 1: mistakenly finding that the letter from the Communist Party was not signed

7. The appellant relied on a letter from the Communist Party. The judge attached only little weight to this document for three reasons. First, the lack of explanation as to how it was obtained. Second, it was not signed. Third, the appellant was unable to explain why the letter would be sent in 2019 when according to his account he had not come to the attention of the police at that time.

8. The grounds submit that the judge was mistaken to find that the letter was not signed. Mr Simpson agreed that the letter was in fact signed and therefore that the judge had made a mistake; but argued that this was immaterial given the other two unchallenged reasons for not attaching weight to the letter.

9. Mr West acknowledged that he was in some difficulty on the question of materiality given the two other reasons for rejecting the letter.

10. I agree with Mr Simpson that the error in respect of whether the letter was signed could not have made any difference to the weight attached to the letter given the judge’s other two reasons for not attaching weight to the letter. The error was not material.

Error 2: drawing an adverse inference from the appellant obtaining a passport and visa despite being at risk.

11. In [28] the judge stated:

The appellant was able to obtain a passport and visa from the Nepali Government and able to leave the country without any problem at all. There was no issue with him obtaining the passport and visa despite his claim that he is and was at risk.

12. As Mr West set out in the grounds, there are two obvious difficulties with this paragraph. First, the appellant’s passport was issued in 2016, which was before his claimed difficulties arose. Second, the appellant obtained a visa from the UK, not Nepal. It follows that it was an error to draw an adverse inference from the appellant not facing difficulties obtaining a passport and visa.

13. Mr Simpson argued that the error was immaterial given the other reasons for not accepting the appellant’s account. He argued that there were strong reasons, unrelated to the passport/visa issue, for not believing the appellant, and therefore the error made no difference to the outcome.

14. Mr West noted that in [33] the judge stated that he assessed “the case as a whole”. He argued that you cannot “hive off” the finding in [28] from the other findings and be certain that the same conclusion would have been reached.

15. The finding in [28] formed part of the overall assessment of credibility, which was based on several adverse findings that were considered in the round and cumulatively. If this finding is disregarded, it is not clear that the same conclusion would inevitably have been reached or that any rational tribunal must have come to the same conclusion. I am therefore not persuaded that the error was immaterial.

Disposal

16. As the error in respect of the passport and visa undermines the overall assessment of credibility, a judge will need to consider afresh the credibility of the appellant’s account. In these circumstances no findings of fact can be preserved. The fact finding to re-make the decision is therefore likely to be extensive. Accordingly, applying Begum (remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 00046 (IAC) and paragraph 7.2 of the Practice Statements of the Immigration and Asylum Chambers of the FTT and UT, it would be appropriate to remit the appeal to the FTT to be considered afresh by a different judge.

Notice of Decision

17. The decision of the FTT involved the making of an error of law. I set aside the decision and remit the appeal to the FTT to be made afresh by different judge.

D Sheridan

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

18 October 2026