Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-001920
First-tier Tribunal: PA/58803/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 6th of July 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE J F W PHILLIPS

Between

A A
(Anonymity decision made)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr S Kerr, Counsel instructed by Kreston Law
For the Respondent: Mr A Sheikh, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 25 June 2026

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant appeals with permission against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 15 February 2026 dismissing his appeal against the Respondent’s decision refusing his protection and human rights claim.
Background
2. The Appellant a citizen of Turkey of Kurdish ethnicity claimed, in summary, that he was at risk on return to Turkey due to his involvement with the HDP having been detained and harmed by the Turkish authorities as a result of his involvement with the HDP on three occasions.
The appeal to the First-tier Tribunal
3. The Appellant’s appeal against the Respondent’s decision was heard by First-tier Tribunal Judge Marsden in an oral hearing on 11 February 2026. The Judge was not satisfied that the Appellant’s factual account of events in Turkey was true or that he had established that he feared persecution for the convention reasons of political opinion and imputed political opinion.
The appeal to the Upper Tribunal
4. First-tier Tribunal Judge Burnett granted permission to appeal on 29 November 2025 in the following terms:
There are 3 grounds of appeal. The first asserts that the judge’s approach to the documents was procedurally unfair, and there were inadequate reasons and findings made. At [80] the judge does not appear to have rejected the detentions in 2016 and 2021 on the basis of the documents produced but also states at [85] that the judge finds the account is not true. I consider the grounds arguable. I grant permission to appeal.
In ground 2 it asserts that the issue of his family being at risk was not put to the appellant at the hearing. I note the author of the grounds appeared at the hearing.
In ground 3 it asserts that the judge filed to place the appellant’s claims into the context of the background material and note provided.
Given I have granted permission in respect of ground 1, the appellant can argue these grounds of appeal also. I do not restrict ambit of permission to appeal.
The hearing
5. Mr Kerr confirmed that a consolidated bundle although not uploaded to CE file had been sent to the Respondent by email and Mr Sheikh confirmed it had been received. This included his note of the First-tier Tribunal hearing in which he had represented the Appellant. Mr Kerr agreed to email the bundle including his notes to the Tribunal. I have received the bundle prior to making this decision.
6. Referring to the grant of permission and the first ground of appeal Mr Kerr said that at paragraphs 74 to 80 of the decision the Judge refers to the various documents corroborating the Appellant’s account of being detained and mistreated and concludes that some weight must be attached to them. The judge does not reject the documents. The Judge goes on to consider the medical evidence and does not appear to reject it merely criticising its probative value. So far as the second ground is concerned the Judge suggests that the Appellant’s evidence that his family in Turkey continue to be involved with the HDP but there is no explanation as to why they are treated differently from the Appellant is procedurally unfair as not only was there limited cross examination on this point but also the Appellant’s evidence was that they are continuously being oppressed by the authorities.
7. For the Respondent Mr Sheikh said that the Judge had correctly identified where the burden of proof lies and adverse credibility findings had been made at paragraphs 69-70. At screening interview, the Appellant said that he had never been involved politically and never detained. So far as the second ground is concerned Mr Sheikh agreed that nothing about the difficulties faced by the Appellant had been put to him but said it was not procedurally unfair for the judge to make the observation at paragraph 82 that there was no explanation why they were treated differently from the Appellant.
Findings – Error of Law
8. Having carefully considered the decision of the First-tier Tribunal and the grounds of appeal I find that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal displays material errors of law. So far as the first ground of appeal is concerned whilst saying at paragraph 85 that he was not satisfied that the Appellant’s factual account of events in Turkey is true the Judge had already found at paragraph 80 that some weight must be attached to the documents corroborating the Appellant’s account of having been detained and beaten in both 2016 and 2018. Indeed, in the same paragraph the Judge goes on to note that the Appellant was allowed to make a complaint against the police. At paragraphs 78 and 80 the Judge notes that having seen the medical reports detailing the Appellant’s injuries no photographs of the injuries were included and that it would have been helpful to have such photographs. It is at least implicit in these paragraphs that the Judge accepts the corroborative evidence of the Appellant’s detention and injuries. The Judge does not give any reason for not doing so. The Judge does not explain why they would have expected the Appellant to photograph his injuries. The Judge records at paragraph 74 that the Appellant was not cross examined about the documents he produced. In my judgment it is far from clear why the Judge rejected the evidence corroborating the Appellant’s account.
9. So far as the screening interview is concerned it is firstly notable that this was conducted by telephone over a short period with no follow up questions. Examples include question 3.4 where the answer recorded to a long and detailed question is “I left Turkey on”, question 3.5, 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8 which are clearly incomplete and 4.1 where the Appellant is recorded as saying “I cannot return to my country because…”. Section 4 of the Screening interview is headed “Basis of asylum claim” and the interviewer has either not recorded the Appellant’s answer at 4.1 or skipped over the question. Section 5, with which the Judge takes issue, is headed “Criminality and Security” and as such the questions are not about the basis of the claim. Screening interviews are just that and unless it is clear that the interviewer has been properly asking and recording the answers to material questions supposed discrepancies between what is recorded at the screening interview and later evidence given should only be held against a subject in the clearest of circumstances.
10. In my judgment the failure to provide sufficient reasons, or indeed any reasons, having given weight to corroborative documents to then disregard them amounts to a material error of law.
11. So far as the second ground is concerned, I find that this also has weight. At paragraph 82 of the decision the Appellant is criticised for failing to explain why his wife and family, having continued involvement with the HDP, would be treated differently from him. In the first place it is clear that the Appellant did indeed say that his family faced consistent harassment. In the second place as Mr Kerr’s notes record nothing was put to the Appellant about his family’s position. In any event the Judge’s observation “It is difficult to understand how they could remain in Turkey involved with the HDP without being at risk” is speculative, fails to take account of the Appellant’s evidence and also seems to make the false assumption that every person with any involvement with the HDP is automatically at risk.
12. Both advocates agreed that in the event of an error of law being found the matter would need to be reheard with no findings preserved and therefore that it should be remitted to the First-tier tribunal.
13. For the reason above I am satisfied that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal contains material errors of law and must be set aside with no findings preserved and be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for rehearing.

Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of a material error on a point of law. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for rehearing with no findings preserved.

Judge J F W Phillips
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal

27 June 2026