Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-000669
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/53553/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
17th August 2026

Before

DEPUTY CHAMBER PRESIDENT PLIMMER

Between

AK
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Kasaula, Kas & Co Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr Mullen, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Melville Street, Edinburgh, on 13 August 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 a citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo (‘DRC’). He has appealed against a First-tier Tribunal (‘FTT’) decision dated 6 November 2025, dismissing his appeal on asylum grounds.

2. In my view the requirements under the Refugee Convention in this particular case outweigh the demands of open justice, and I continue the anonymity order made by the FTT.

3. The appellant has relied upon a straightforward account in support of his asylum claim. He states that he was the vice president of the youth branch of the MLP, an opposition political party in the DRC. He claims to have been kidnapped and detained in June 2023 when he was tortured, until his escape from prison and his departure from the DRC with the assistance of unknown individuals.

4. Mr Mullen accepted that the FTT has made an error of law such that the decision must be set aside and remitted. He was correct to do so for the reasons I outline below.

5. The FTT disbelieved the appellant's account. It was considered that the appellant was unable to provide any meaningful detail about the aims and objectives of the MLP and provided superficial answers at his asylum interview concerning his political awareness and activities. The FTT addressed the appellant's account of being kidnapped and imprisoned at [12(e)] in this way:

“The appellant says that after delivering a speech to 20 people he was kidnapped by UDPS paramilitaries and held in a secret detention facility where he was tortured for 14 days. Once again the appellant gives a superficial account. He identifies his kidnappers by the T-shirts. He can't say where he was held. He gives details of torture and sexual abuse but no other detail about who was holding him, where he was held or why he was tormented for 14 days under threat to his life.”

6. Ground 2 alleges that the FTT failed to consider material evidence including country background evidence, when making its findings concerning the appellant’s role in the MLP and in concluding that his evidence was superficial, without analysing specific parts of the evidence.

7. I accept that the FTT has not taken into account the appellant’s explanation as to why he did not know where he was held and why he was tormented in prison. In his witness statement dated 2 June 2025 at [26-29], he made it clear that when apprehended, he was blindfolded, did not know what was happening but found himself within detention. He also said he was tortured and they kept asking him why he was standing against the President. That explanation is consistent with his response to questions at the asylum interview. At Q86 he refers to being blindfolded. At Q 90 and 91 he referred to having made an anti-government speech that the President did not like. Moreover at Q87 the appellant responded clearly to the question “who kidnapped you?”. The FTT was required to consider the appellant’s evidence in the context of the country background evidence. The relevant November 2023 COIS report on political opposition in the DRC noted PO (DRC -Post 2018 elections) DRC CG [2023] UKUT 00117 (IAC). This states that MLC members are no longer generally at risk but a fact sensitive analysis should be conducted. The COIS goes on to provide evidence of opposition activists being arrested and detained from May 2023 in the lead up to forthcoming elections. This provided some support for the appellant’s claim to be arrested and detained for the reasons he provided, which the FTT failed to take into account.

8. It follows that the FTT made a material error of law when assessing the credibility of the appellant’s account and no factual findings are preserved. I have considered the guidance in AEB v SSHD [2022] EWCA Civ 1512; [2023] 4 WLR 12, Begum (remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 46 (IAC); [2023] Imm AR 558 and Majera v SSHD [2025] EWCA Civ 1597. Given the extensive findings of fact and the scope of the issues which remain for decision, it is appropriate to remit this appeal to the FTT to be heard by a judge other than FTT Judge Doyle. Both parties agreed with this course.

Decision

9. The decision of the FTT contains an error of law and is set aside. The decision is remitted to the FTT, where it shall be remade.

DCP Plimmer
Deputy Chamber President Plimmer

13 August 2026