UI-2026-000921

  • Case title:  
  • Appellant name:
  • Status of case: Unreported
  • Hearing date:
  • Promulgation date:
  • Publication date:
  • Last updated on:
  • Country:
  • Judges:

The decision



IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-000921
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/64401/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 30th of June 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DAYKIN

Between

MG (Turkey)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr R Sharma, Counsel instructed by Shervins Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr E Terrell, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 11 May 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. This is an appeal brought with permission by the Appellant against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 26 November 2025 in which the Appellant’s appeal against the refusal of his protection and human rights claims were dismissed.

2. The Appellant is a national of Turkey, and his claims are based on his fear of persecution and ill-treatment upon return to Turkey due to his political beliefs, he supported the Kurdish HDP party and was politically active. He claims to have detained and ill-treated as a result.

3. The First-tier Tribunal Judge did not find the Appellant credible and dismissed the appeal on all grounds.

Summary of grounds and submissions

4. I heard submissions from the representatives which are a matter of record.

5. The Appellant advanced five grounds of appeal but I only need deal with the first ground, which contends that the Judge’s decision lacked adequate reasoning for rejecting the Appellant’s credibility. The Respondent conceded this ground and as a consequence the parties agreed that the appeal should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard de novo. The Respondent was correct to make this concession. The Judge said that there were a number of inconsistencies in the appellant’s evidence but failed to identify what they were. Since this an appeal that turned on credibility the decision must be reconsidered in its entirety.

Notice of Decision

6. The appeal is allowed.

7. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of material errors of law and is set aside with no findings preserved.

8. The appeal will be remitted back to the First-tier Tribunal for remaking to be heard by a different judge.


E Daykin

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber


22 June 2026