Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-001944
First-tier Tribunal No:
PA/02156/2024
PA/67875/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 13th of October 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LINDSLEY

Between
JIJI
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: None
For the Respondent: Mr J Nappey, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Interpretation: Mr M H I Abbaker in Sudanese Arabic

Heard at Field House on 6 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
Introduction
1. The appellant is a citizen of Chad born in 1993. He came to the UK on 1st June 2021 and claimed asylum on arrival. His application was refused by the respondent on 21st December 2023. The appellant’s appeal against the decision refusing his protection and human rights claim was dismissed on all grounds by a First-tier Tribunal Judge in a decision promulgated on 14th November 2025.
2. Permission to appeal was granted by a Judge of the First-tier Tribunal and I found that the First-tier Tribunal had erred in law for the reasons set out in my decision at Annex A to this decision.
3. The matter now comes before me to remake the appeal de novo as no findings were preserved from the decision of the First-tier Tribunal. Mr Nappey confirmed that he was content to deal with a few pieces of new evidence produced by the appellant, who acts in person, which had not arrived with the respondent. We started the hearing by ascertaining what these pieces of evidence were with the appellant. I detail them below in the context of the appellant’s history.
Evidence & Submissions – Remaking
4. In summary the evidence of the appellant, both from his witness statement, interview notes and his oral evidence is as follows. He was born in Hujurat in 1993, a remote village in the east of Chad. He is a member of the Bargo tribe. He had seven siblings, five living sisters and two deceased brothers, A and R. He had some basic primary school education because of attending a religious Koran based school. His mother continues to live in this village, but his father passed away a long time ago. He met his future wife, WMB, at the beginning of 2014 as her family owned a farm near to his family land. They developed a secret relationship.
5. The appellant wished to marry WMB, the daughter of a colonel and member of the Zaghawa tribe, MB. This tribe runs Chad. WMB lived in a nearby village with his family. The appellant went to ask her father for his daughter’s hand in marriage with his two brothers on two occasions at the end of 2014, but MB refused.
6. The appellant continued his relationship with WMB however, and she became pregnant. When her pregnancy was discovered, her brothers beat her with the result that the baby died, and she miscarried when she was 4 or 5 months pregnant, although this only became known to the appellant after he left Chad and called his wife. The brothers wanted to kill the appellant as what had happened was shameful for MB’s family. The appellant’s opinion is that the man is the principal target in honour killings in Chad, but on occasions both the man and woman are killed. The appellant escaped but his brothers were captured: A was killed and R had his legs broken. R then sadly died due to a lack of medical care after receiving these injuries. At the remaking hearing the appellant produced documents in French and Arabic which he said were the death certificates for A and R. R is recorded as having died on 4th May 2016 and A on 5th February 2015. The death of R was registered in July 2026. The appellant explained that this was because the death was only registered when the certificate was requested. The appellant says these documents were sent to him via WhatsApp by a friend.
7. The appellant left Chad in February 2015. He was taken over the border with Sudan on a motorbike by someone he hired to do this. It took three hours to arrive in Sudan. When he arrived in Sudan he called his wife on the phone, and when he heard what had happened to her at the hands of her brothers, he said she should join him. She came to join him a month later, he thinks by escaping her father’s house at night and travelling by motorbike as he did, and they had an Islamic marriage. There is no marriage certificate because they did not have identity documents and were not Sudanese so they could not register the marriage with the authorities in Sudan. He and his wife remained in Sudan until March 2017. They left Sudan due to the civil war there which made it unsafe. They left Sudan in the back of a lorry with the assistance of a Sudanese smuggler. From March 2017 to April 2020, they lived in Libya. The appellant spent a year in prison in very poor conditions. He says there is a photograph of him in prison in the supplementary bundle. He was then released and worked on a farm. The appellant has provided a signed letter from a Sudanese friend, Mr Abdalla, who is a recognised refugee in the UK stating that he met the appellant and his wife in Libya in 2020. Mr Abdalla came to the hearing and gave evidence that his letter was true.
8. The appellant decided that it was not safe in Libya however, so his wife returned to Sudan as he felt it was too dangerous for her to travel by boat across the sea, and he travelled onwards with a Libyan smuggler to Italy. He claimed asylum, or at least was finger-printed, in Italy but was thrown out of the camp where he was living after three months, so he travelled on to France where he remained for 7 months before being returned to Italy, but the Italians told him he had to leave so he went back to France and then travelled from Calais to the UK. He entered the UK on 1st June 2021 and claimed asylum on arrival.
9. Since the appellant arrived in the UK, he has been in touch with his sisters. His younger sister, Y was raped by one of his father-in-law’s sons in 2023 or 2024. His family did report this to the police but there was no investigation due to the influence of his father-in-law. He has also provided evidence that wider family have been attacked as a result of his actions: his nephew Omar and cousin Nedal were attacked, his cousin Adil and his nephew Abdul were killed. Photographs of these people are in the supplementary bundle. They were sent by a friend of his in Chad to his cousin in Cameroon, who then sent them to him.
10. The appellant believes that this shows he will be killed if he returned to Chad to restore honour to MB and his family. He says he cannot go elsewhere in Chad as the Zaghawa tribe, which is a huge family/ clan, will report his presence to his father-in-law, and it is not possible to hide in Chad particularly as MB is in the military. The authorities will not protect him against MB as the Zaghawa are the country’s rulers. There has been no police investigation into the deaths of his brothers due to the power of this tribe and MB, or with respect to the rape of his sister. The appellant says that he went on a demonstration in London to protest about the killing of Yaya Dillo who was a well-known Chadian politician who might have created a more justice country but was assassinated in 2024. The appellant maintains that his presence at this demonstration would be known by the Chadian authorities, and this may increase his risk on return.
11. In support of his claim the appellant has provided a copy of his wife’s refugee identity document from Sudan from the Darfur province and her refugee/ displaced person ID card which gives her date of displacement as 30th December 2023, and states she is in the Kalma Displaced Camp in Nyala, Elmawashi district, Darfur. He says that he got this document by it being sent via WhatsApp. The appellant explains that between 2015 and December 2023, whilst in Sudan, his wife lived in Nyala city and so the date is the she was recognised as a refugee/displaced person by the Sudanese authorities. The appellant has also provided Facebook chat screenshots in Arabic which he says are him messaging with his wife.
12. The respondent relies on the reasons for refusal letter dated 21st December 2023, the respondent’s review and oral submissions from Mr Nappey. In summary it is argued as follows. Whilst in the reasons for refusal letter the credibility of the history was put in doubt at the hearing Mr Nappey accepted that the appellant had been consistent in his history and was a credible witness, and that therefore it was conceded that the appellant was at risk in his home area. It was argued however that there was no particular social group made out on the facts, and thus the appellant could not qualify for refugee status, and further that he could find safety by internally relocating to N’Djamena where MB would not have reach to harm him as he would not know he was there. It was argued that it was reasonable to expect the appellant to relocate as he is a young man who is in reasonably good health who has at least one friend in Chad. The appellant is not a political dissident, as he only attended one demonstration, so this would not be an obstacle to his reintegration. As a result the appeal also fails on humanitarian protection, Article 3 and 8 ECHR grounds.
13. The appellant argues that he could not relocate to N’Djamena, the capital of Chad, because he would be in danger from MB and the Zaghawa tribe who would report his presence back to his father-in-law. He argues that his honour issues will continue until MB’s honour is restored by killing him so the fact that more than 10 years have elapsed does not make it safe. The fact that there have been on-going attacks on wider family shows that this is the case. He argues that the Zaghawa are above the law in Chad, and they are particularly present in N’Djamena because the capital has a preponderance of the government and intelligence agencies, and the reports to the police of his brothers’ deaths and his sister’s rape did not result in any action being taken against MB or his sons.
14. The appellant also argues that it would not be reasonable to return him to Chad to live in N’Djamena as he continues to suffer from TB, and be treated for this with physiotherapy due to respiratory problems and on-going medical appointments in the UK, and thus he is not a well person. He is not advised by his doctor to be in confined spaces or live anywhere with a high altitude due to the lack of oxygen, or to live anywhere that is damp. He only has one friend in Chad, and the cousin he is in touch with lives in Cameroon as he is at risk in Chad, so, he argues, he would not have any practical support if he were returned to N’Djamena.
Conclusions – Remaking
15. It is helpful to start with some background information from the respondent’s CPIN dated March 2024 about Chad. Chad is a large country. The Zaghawa people are from the east of Sudan and make up much of the “feared Republican Guard (7.2.3) and “a disproportionate number of civilian and military posts, creating imbalances in access to opportunity and enforcement of laws guaranteeing equal protection for all” (11.1.4), and the presidents of Chad have all come from the Bideyat, who are a sub-clan of the Zaghawa (7.2.3). The country is very poor, with 42% living below the national poverty line, and some 34% living in extreme poverty (8.1.4). About 1.5 million people live in the capital city N’Djamena. Yaya Dillo, president of the Socialist Party Without Borders, was killed in February 2024 as a result of being a political opponent to the president of Chad, Gen. Mahamat Idriss Deby Itno.
16. I accepted the respondent’s submission that was made in the reasons for refusal letter and reiterated by Mr Nappey that there is no particular social group made out on the facts of this case. The appellant states he has a fear of serious harm because he will be a victim of an honour killing if returned to Chad, but there is no country-of-origin evidence that supports him being subject to this persecution because of any inherent characteristics such as his tribe or gender. There is no argument for the appellant that he falls within a particular social group and therefore his claim under the Refugee Convention must fail. The remaining appeals relating to humanitarian protection and Article 3 and 8 ECHR remain, of course, to be determined.
17. The appellant was accepted by Mr Nappey, acting for the respondent at the hearing before the Upper Tribunal, as being a credible witness, and it was therefore accepted that the appellant was and is at real risk of serious harm in his home area. The appellant’s history is that he was threatened with death by his father-in-law MB as a result of his pre-marital relationship with WMB, and was forced to flee Chad, and that two of his brothers, a cousin and a nephew were killed by MB, his sister was raped, and a nephew and cousin were assaulted as MB sought revenge on the appellant and his family. These attacks happened between 2015 and 2024. It follows that it was therefore accepted by the respondent that the appellant has been the victim of credible threats of persecution in the past, and thus paragraph 339K of the Immigration Rules applies, and he must be seen as a person who would be at real risk of serious harm unless there are good reasons to conclude that it would not be repeated.
18. The reason Mr Nappey argues that the appellant would not be at risk is he could find safety by internally relocating to the capital city of Chad, N’Djamena. He argues that MB does not have reach to find the appellant in N’Djamena, which is approximately 600 miles away from the appellant’s home area, and that the appellant could reasonably be expected to relocate to N’Djamena, a city of 1.5 million people, as he is young, reasonably well, although still having some treatment for TB he does not have other health conditions, and in the context of his having at least one friend who has assisted him to prepare his appeal who remains in Chad.
19. The appellant says he would be at risk in N’Djamena because it is the centre of government and therefore the centre for security and military, and therefore many members of the dominant Zaghawa tribe are present there and that word would therefore get to MB, a senior military man, that he had returned to Chad and he would be at real risk of being killed to satisfy MB’s honour, and that this would be likely to happen in the context of the killing of four of his close family members, and assaults on three others, over the past 12 years with all of this being a result of his having formed a relationship with MB’s daughter.
20. I note, as set out above, that the Chadian military guard are feared and the law is not enforced equally with respect to the Zaghawa enabling them potentially to act with impunity. I accept that there will be a preponderance of influential people, and therefore significant numbers of well-connected Zaghawa tribe in the capital city of Chad despite their originating from northeastern Chad. I find that as the respondent accepts the credibility of the appellant’s history this is an acceptance of a very considerable amount of killing and serious assaults carried out at the behest of MB. Whilst these killings and assaults were all in the appellant’s home area, they took place over a long period, the eight or nine years after the relationship between the appellant and his wife was discovered. I find that the scale of the campaign of revenge and the period of time over which it took place to be factors which support a conclusion that MB would be interested in letting it be known that he would be interested in information with respect to the appellant’s return to Chad from fellow tribe members in positions of power, and otherwise, in N’Djamena.
21. The appellant is not well educated, does not have work experience for city jobs, has some breathing problems from his TB and would have only limited support from one friend on return due to the terrible impact his relationship with WMB has had on his family and the fact that they are in any case poor agrarian people, and so I find would not have resources to assist him to disappear and live anonymously in N’Djamena. Chad is a very poor country with many living at or below the poverty line and in this context the appellant would have to go out and very actively look for work and accommodation, thereby engaging and talking with large numbers of people, to survive. I find in this context that there remains a real risk, to the lower civil standard of proof, that in N’Djamena the appellant would be reported to MB by a military connection or member of his tribe, and subject to serious harm in the form of unlawful killing if he were returned to Chad for which there would be no sufficiency of protection. I find that he is therefore entitled to succeed in his appeal on humanitarian protection grounds, and for the same reasons his human rights appeal also succeeds.
Decision:
1. The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error on a point of law.
2. I set aside the decision and all the findings of the First-tier Tribunal.
3. I remake the appeal by allowing it on humanitarian protection and human rights grounds.

Fiona Lindsley

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

12th October 2026

Annex A: Error of Law Decision

DECISION AND REASONS

Introduction
1. The appellant is a citizen of Chad born in 1993. He came to the UK on 1st June 2021 and claimed asylum on arrival. His application was refused by the respondent on 21st December 2023. The appellant’s appeal against the decision refusing his protection and human rights claim was dismissed on all grounds by a First-tier Tribunal Judge in a decision promulgated on 14th November 2025.
2. Permission to appeal was granted by a Judge of the First-tier Tribunal on 8th April 2024 on the basis that it was arguable that the First-tier judge had erred in law by making findings based on speculation and misapplying the corroboration principles as set out in MAH (Egypt) v SSHD [2023] EWCA Civ 201.
3. The matter now comes before me to determine whether the First-tier Tribunal had erred in law, and if so whether any such error was material and whether the decision of the First-tier Tribunal should be set aside.
Submissions – Error of Law
4. In the grounds of appeal with one additional oral submission from the appellant it is argued, in short summary, that the First-tier Tribunal erred in law as follows.
5. Firstly, it is argued, that the First-tier Tribunal erred by providing inadequate and speculative plausibility reasoning with respect to the finding that the appellant and his partner would not have had unprotected sex given their ages and the “honour” context. It was said that inherent probability is a “dangerous” and “inappropriate” tool when based on speculation and a lack of knowledge of the cultural and social context, and so in HK v SSHD [2026] EWCA Civ 1037 findings based on unevidenced assumptions of what would ordinarily occur were set aside. The appellant also disputed that he had said in evidence that he was a young teenager when he started his relationship with his wife and said he had simply said he was young. As he was no longer able to fund his solicitors there was no submission from the representative on this matter.
6. Secondly, it is argued, that there is an error of law by misapplication of the corroboration principles as set out in MAH (Egypt) as the First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal based on the appellant’s inability to provide further corroborating material but the First-tier Tribunal failed to engage with the evidence that the appellant had in fact supplied in the supplementary bundle, and thus failed to consider the evidence in the round. The First-tier Tribunal rejected the appellant’s account of his relationship and marriage to WMB on the basis that there was no marriage certificate or supporting statements from family without considering the practical difficulties in obtaining such documents from a remote village in Chad, and there was a failure to consider the photographic evidence and other evidence going to recent events.
7. In a Rule 24 notice dated 7th May 2026 and in oral submissions from Mr Ojo it is argued that the findings were lawfully open to the First-tier Tribunal for the following reasons.
8. With respect to the first ground it is argued that the First-tier Tribunal started from a position that honour crime existed as this was what the appellant claimed was the case, and indeed in his witness statement he said that pregnancy outside marriage meant that dishonour would fall on the family, particularly on those from a high-ranking family and the couple would usually be murdered. Other evidence included the fact that the appellant’s girl-friend’s father was in the military and that the family belonged to the ruling Zaghawa tribe, which is corroborated by country of origin evidence as showing that they are indeed a ruling tribe and that there are human rights abuses committed by those who abuse their position of power. In these circumstances it was open to the First-tier Tribunal to find that it was implausible that the appellant and his girlfriend took no precautions given the consequence of pregnancy for persons in their position. It is argued that this decision was therefore in keeping with HK v SSHD as this is not a case where the First-tier Tribunal Judge was looking at things through a western lens or engaging in speculation. The appellant and his wife were 21 and 19 years old when they had unprotected sex and so were not young teenagers, as observed by the First-tier Tribunal, and this discrepancy formed a second reason which supplemented the general lack of credibility of the appellant’s claimed history.
9. With respect to the second ground of appeal, it is argued that the decision was made in the round by the First-tier Tribunal Judge and that the supplementary bundle was engaged with as the appellant’s wife’s refuge ID document is referred to in the decision. It was not relevant if the photographic evidence from the supplementary bundle was not referred in the decision as this was not referred to in the appellant skeleton argument, and applying Lata (FtT: principal controversial issues) India [2023] UKUT 163 the issues must be agreed and the Judge taken to the relevant evidence in the ASA, and further as per Volpi v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464 it is not necessary for the First-tier Tribunal to refer to all of the evidence. There was also no evidence from the representative at the First-tier Tribunal that the importance of the supplementary bundle evidence was pressed as relevant at the hearing. It was reasonable to take note of the missing evidence as the appellant said he was in contact with his wife electronically in cross examination and said in his witness statement he was in contact with his family, and the appellant had been able to obtain a copy of his wife’s refugee ID card, and thus applying MAH (Egypt) these matters lawful reduced the credibility of the appellant as there was evidence that could reasonably have been obtained and no good reason is given for not obtaining it.
10. At the end of the hearing I told the parties that I found that the First-tier Tribunal erred in law and would set out my reasons in a decision in writing. Mr Ojo argued that the remaking might be suitable for remittal to the First-tier Tribunal, as there would not be any retained findings, but he did not actively object to it remaining in the Upper Tribunal. The appellant said that he would like the remaking to take place in the Upper Tribunal as he preferred that it was heard sooner and this was more likely to be happen in the Upper Tribunal. I found that the remaking could be kept in the Upper Tribunal as there was not an extensive amount of evidence. The appellant was provided with a brief description as to how he should prepare a paginated and indexed electronic bundle of relevant documents (both those previously filed and served and any new evidence) that he should email to the presenting officers unit and upload onto CE file 10 days prior to the remaking hearing, as is set out in directions below.
Conclusions – Error of Law
11. With respect to the first ground I find as follows. At paragraph 38 of the decision the First-tier Tribunal finds that in a society where honour crime exists, and where the woman’s father is in the military and from a ruling tribe, it was not credible for a 19-year-old and a 21-year-old to have unprotected sex. I find that this is an unsustainable finding. This is not because the First-tier Tribunal Judge misunderstood the context: clearly the evidence of the appellant and the country-of-origin evidence supported that this was an honour-based society and the Judge understood this, but is because the Judge comes to an irrational view of human nature and the risks people not uncommonly take. It is plainly the case that young people, however much they know the cultural norms, often fail to act prudently or in accordance with such norms, particularly when it comes to emotionally driven relationships. I find that this was therefore an irrational reason to find that the claim should not be found as credible as is done in this paragraph, and the fact that appellant may have been understood to have given evidence he was a young teenager at the time of his relationship commencing, when he was in fact he was 21 years old, does not suffice to rationally conclude, as is done at the end of the paragraph weighing these two factors: “I therefore do not accept the appellant’s claim that he was the victim of an honour crime for the reasons he has given.”
12. With respect to the second ground I find as follows. It was open to the First-tier Tribunal to find that the appellant’s credibility was damaged, applying MAH, by his failure to provide documents from his family including statements from his family, his marriage certificate, the death certificates for his brothers and Facebook contact with his partner given that he had said he had been in contact with family and his wife and had not explained why he had only been able to supply the evidence in the supplementary bundle. In so far as the second ground contends that this was not lawfully permissible, I do not find that this error is made out.
13. However, I find that there is an error of law with respect to the treatment of the evidence the appellant did supply as contended by the grounds. The First-tier Tribunal Judge states that the evidence has been looked at in the round at paragraph 29, and it is said that the supplementary bundle evidence was considered at paragraph 16 of the decision, and again that all evidence has been considered at paragraph 30. However, in the first line of paragraph 39 it states: “Further the appellant has provided no documentary evidence to corroborate his claim.” This is simply not correct. In the supplementary bundle there are photographs of persons said to be the appellant’s injured cousins and a copy of his wife’s refugee identity document from Darfur province Sudan. So whilst it appears that the appellant’s wife’s refugee identity document is used to verify her age at paragraph 37 I find that it has been wrongly found not to be corroborative documentary evidence despite the fact that the history, as set out in the appellant’s evidence, is that his partner fled Chad and went to Sudan as a refugee due to ill-treatment from her family. I find therefore that the decision errs in law for holding against the credibility of the appellant’s a total lack of corroborative evidence when this is not the case.
Decision:
1. The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error on a point of law.
2. I set aside the decision and all of the findings of the First-tier Tribunal.
3. I adjourn the remaking of the decision.
Directions:
4. Ten days prior to the remaking hearing date, which will be sent to the appellant separately, the appellant will file with the Upper Tribunal and serve on the Home Office, to the email given by Mr Ojo at the hearing, a paginated and indexed bundle.
5. This bundle should include all relevant evidence for the remaking of the appeal, and thus the “old documents” (his witness statement from September 2024, his wife’s refugee identity document and translation, the photographs of his cousins and the Chad CPIN and the latest Chad Human Rights Watch Report) and any new documents he can obtain to support his appeal from his family or anyone else.
6. The bundle should also contain an up-dating witness statement explaining how his wife’s refugee identity document and the photographs were obtained; what the relevance of the photographs is; how any other new evidence has been obtained; and giving details of any other matters of importance to his asylum claim which have taken place since September 2024 and reasons why the appellant says he is still in danger if he returns to Chad.

Fiona Lindsley

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

30th June 2026