Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-000976
FTT Appeal No: PA/65494/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

7th August 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SWANEY

Between

TN
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr A Janjua, counsel, instructed by Morden Solicitors LLP
For the Respondent: Ms A Evertt, senior presenting officer

Heard at Field House on 28 July 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
Anonymity order
1. I have considered whether to make an anonymity order and have decided that one is necessary because the need for the United Kingdom to discharge its obligations under the Refugee Convention outweighs the public interest in open justice.
Background
2. The appellant appeals the decision of the First-tier Tribunal judge (the judge) promulgated on 7 November 2025, dismissing the appeal against the refusal of his international protection and human rights claims.
3. The appellant entered the United Kingdom on 31 May 2022 with entry clearance as a seasonal worker. He claimed asylum on 22 November 2023 on the grounds that he had a well-founded fear of persecution for reason of his political opinion. The appellant claims to be a member of the Brotherhood for Democracy. He claims that his activities in the United Kingdom also put him at risk on return.
4. The appellant’s claim was refused on 14 May 2024 and he appealed the decision. His appeal was dismissed on 7 November 2025. His application for permission to appeal was refused by the First-tier Tribunal on 16 February 2026. He renewed the application to the Upper Tribunal who granted permission to appeal on 18 May 2026.
5. The appeal comes before me for a determination of whether the judge made a material error of law.
The hearing
6. The appellant failed to file and serve a composite bundle in accordance with directions; however, filed one late on 17 July 2026. I considered the composite bundle, a skeleton argument on behalf of the appellant, and the respondent’s rule 24 response as well as the oral submissions of both parties in reaching my decision.
7. Permission to appeal was granted on all grounds, which can be summarised as follows:
(i) The judge failed to properly consider material evidence (summonses) by failing to apply the principles in Tanveer Ahmed [2002] UKIAT 439 and placing undue weight on their appearance rather than their content.
(ii) The judge failed to consider photographs purporting to be of police visiting the appellant’s wife at all.
(iii) The judge failed to consider whether ongoing police visits/surveillance were indicators of ongoing interest in the appellant.
8. For the appellant, Mr Janjua relied on his skeleton argument. He accepted that the judge was not required to cite Tanveer Ahmed, if he applied the principles correctly. Mr Janjua submitted that in failing to consider the content of the summonses and relying exclusively on their appearance to reject them, failed to apply the principles in Tanveer Ahmed and that his assessment of those documents was in error. Mr Janjua submitted that had the judge considered the content of the documents, and considered those documents together with the other evidence, he would have reached a different conclusion given the consistency in the evidence as a whole.
9. Ms Everett relied on the rule 24 response and submitted that there is nothing to suggest that the judge failed to have regard to the principles in Tanveer Ahmed; that the judge correctly considered the evidence in the round; and that while the judge did not expressly refer to the content of the summonses, it cannot be inferred that he failed to take their content into account. While Ms Everett recognised the validity of the alternative scenario raised by Judge Perkins in granting permission, Ms Everett submitted that it was reasonable for the judge to have regard to the similarities between the two summonses and that it was just one concern that the judge had about those documents.
10. Mr Janjua submitted that the judge failed to have regard to material evidence relating to the appellant’s claim that the police have a continuing interest in him including photographs, an email from the appellant, text messages between the appellant and his wife, and medical evidence. He submitted that had the judge had regard to the evidence, his conclusions on credibility would have been different.
11. In relation to the photographs, the respondent submits that there is nothing to suggest that the judge was specifically referred to the photographs; that they were not mentioned by the appellant in his witness statement; and while they are mentioned in an email from the appellant dated 12 April 2024, he provides no further context about them. The respondent notes that there is no corroborating evidence to demonstrate that the photographs were taken at the appellant’s home and contends that they did not advance the appellant’s case significantly meaning the judge’s failure to specifically refer to them is not material. Ms Everett submitted that it was clear that the judge understood the nature of the appellant’s claim and that he was aware that the appellant asserted that the police had a continuing interest in him. She submitted that the judge gave adequate reasons for rejecting the appellant’s claim.
12. Mr Janjua submitted that in respect of the appellant’s activities in the United Kingdom, the judge unreasonably focused almost solely on the appellant’s Facebook account. He contended that the judge failed to have adequate regard to the letters from the Brotherhood for Democracy, giving inadequate reasons for placing little weight on them. Mr Janjua submitted that it was reasonable that the letters were written in English given that the appellant is a member of the organisation in the United Kingdom, where the language used is English.
13. Mr Janjua submitted that the evidence the judge failed to consider/give adequate weight to is material, as it is evidence going to why the authorities have a continuing interest in the appellant. He noted that the appellant has attended meetings at which the president delivered lectures, the significance of which is that the background evidence demonstrates that the authorities track and monitor high profile individuals. The evidence demonstrates that the appellant was present at those meetings. Moreover, the appellant has re-posted the leader’s posts and it is his proximity to such a high profile individual that increases his own risk. Mr Janjua essentially submitted that the judge’s failure to consider all of the evidence in the round resulted in a failure to identify a reason for the continuing interest in the appellant and the material failure to consider the risk arising from that continuing interest.
14. Ms Everett submitted that the judge’s failure to consider whether ongoing surveillance or police visits was evidence of ongoing interest was not material given the finding that the appellant was not a political activist and that his sur place activities would not put him at risk on return. She submitted that the judge gave many and sustainable reasons for his conclusions.
Consideration
15. I am satisfied that the judge’s consideration of the summons documents is flawed. The judge failed to make any mention of the content of the summonses, finding that they were not reliable documents based on their appearance alone. The judge states that it seems unusual to him that documents prepared two years apart would appear so similar without reference to any evidence to support that view and without considering why it might be the case. The judge failed to consider the documents in the light of the totality of the other evidence, and in doing so, failed to properly apply the principles in Tanveer Ahmed.
16. In relation to the failure to consider the photographs, I reject the respondent’s submission that there is nothing to suggest that the judge did not consider them. While it is the case that the judge was not required to refer expressly to every item of evidence considered, there is no indication that the photographs formed part of the judge’s consideration at all. They are relevant to the appellant’s assertion that the police have an ongoing interest in him and are consistent with other evidence such as the text messages between the appellant and his wife and the email from the appellant. There is no reference in the judge’s decision to any of this evidence, and if it was considered, no indication of what the judge thought of it.
17. The judge’s reasons for giving little weight to documents relied on by the appellant including the summonses and the letters from Brotherhood for Democracy are based on his views and assumptions about them rather than any evidence that was before him which supported those views and assumptions.
18. I am satisfied that the judge’s failure to consider all of the evidence in the round materially impacted on his consideration of the appellant’s credibility and his conclusion that the appellant was not a political activist and would not be at risk on return. The judge’s errors are therefore material.
19. Having had regard to the views of both parties, paragraph 7.2 of the Practice Directions and what was said by the Court of Appeal in AEB v SSHD [2022], Civ 1512, I find that the appeal should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing. This is because the flawed credibility assessment infects all of the judge’s findings such that none should be preserved.
Notice of Decision
20. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involves the making of an error of law.
21. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside, and no findings are preserved.
22. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal at Taylor House for a hearing before any judge other than Judge Richardson.
J K Swaney
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
29 July 2026