Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-002137
(PA/66648/2024)

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

1st August 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LANE
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALIS

Between

M H
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant

AND

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr Rashid, Counsel
For the Respondent: Ms Newton, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Manchester Civil Justice Centre on the 13 July 2026

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant is a national of Bangladesh, and he originally appealed against a decision taken by the Respondent on 29 May 2024 to refuse to grant him refugee status or protection under ECHR legislation.

BACKGROUND AND MATTERS IN ISSUE
2. The First-tier Tribunal (FtT) dismissed the Appellant’s appeal on dated 5 February 2026.
3. The Appellant appealed this decision and permission to appeal was granted by on 28 April 2026. The permission stated:
“2. The grounds aver that the FTJ’s has made material errors of law, as she has not considered the evidence in the round; there is inadequate consideration of his detention, an important issue in the appeal, and the consequent findings on risk; there are errors made in the reference to documents, for example she refers to a ‘bribe’ rather than a ‘bond’ and reference is made to ’£10’ instead of ’10 taka’; the expert report is rejected on a misreading of the CPIN; in considering ‘very significant obstacles’ there is no reference to the medical evidence of the appellant’s PTSD or the CPIN.
3. All grounds amount to arguable material errors of law, and permission to appeal is granted.”
4. We extended the anonymity order which had been made in the FtT
PRELIMINARY ISSUE
5. Ms Newton confirmed there was a Rule 24 response which had not been included in the composite bundle. We considered this document together with all the papers before us.
SUBMISSIONS ON ERROR IN LAW
6. Mr Rashid relied on the five grounds advanced in the written grounds of appeal and supplemented those grounds with oral submissions.
7. Mr Rashid submitted as follows:
a. The FtT’s credibility assessment was unsafe because the evidence had not been considered holistically. Although the FtT accepted that the Appellant had sustained a gunshot wound the FtT had failed to engage with the medical evidence linking his symptoms and psychological difficulties to an assault in Bangladesh and failed properly to consider evidence suggestive of PTSD when assessing credibility. The FtT had placed weight upon perceived inconsistencies in the asylum interview without taking adequate account of the Appellant’s vulnerability, the stressful circumstances of the interview and the evidence concerning his mental health.
b. The FtT’s treatment of the documentary evidence was flawed, including in relation to the BNP membership documentation, and that those errors materially infected the overall credibility findings.
c. In respect of the Appellant’s claimed detention and mistreatment, Mr Rashid submitted that a central feature of the protection claim was that he had been detained for 13 days and tortured following his arrest in 2021. Reliance was placed upon the screening interview, substantive interview and supporting documentation. Mr Rashid argued that the FtT failed adequately to engage with that evidence and failed to consider paragraph 339K of the Immigration Rules notwithstanding the accepted evidence of a gunshot injury and the Appellant’s account of previous ill-treatment.
d. The FtT erred in the treatment of the documentary evidence. Reference was made to the court documents and other records emanating from Bangladesh. The FtT had mischaracterised aspects of the evidence, including the reference to a bond of 50,000 taka, and failed properly to assess the significance of the Respondent’s decision not to verify the documents despite having had them before the refusal decision was made. Mr Rashid submitted that, whilst there was no duty to verify, the existence of verification procedures and the centrality of the documents to the claim were relevant matters which had not been adequately addressed.
e. The FtT materially erred in the assessment of the expert evidence and the Article 8 claim. The FtT misread the country material concerning the withdrawal of politically motivated cases in Bangladesh and thereby failed properly to engage with the expert’s opinions. In relation to reintegration and Article 3, Mr Rashid submitted that the Appellant’s mental health difficulties, including evidence suggestive of PTSD, were not adequately taken into account when assessing very significant obstacles to integration or when considering the availability and adequacy of mental health treatment in Bangladesh. He submitted that, cumulatively, the errors identified undermined the safety of the decision.
8. Ms Newton relied on the Rule 24 response which she adopted at the hearing. She submitted as follows:
a. The FtT had directed itself appropriately and had considered the evidence in the round. The FtT expressly referred to Tanveer Ahmed and QC (verification of documents; Mibanga duty) [2021] UKUT 33 (IAC) and thereafter considered the Appellant’s medical evidence, documentary evidence, claimed BNP activities, expert report and sur place activities before reaching adverse credibility findings. The grounds amounted to a disagreement and the findings made were properly open to the FtT and did not identify any legal error.
b. In relation to the credibility findings, Ms Newton submitted that the FtT provided detailed reasons between paragraphs [35] and [61] of the decision for rejecting the Appellant’s account. The FtT was entitled to conclude that the FtT had embellished aspects of his account, had given inconsistent evidence concerning his political role and had failed to establish the reliability of the BNP documentation. She submitted that all the documents had been assessed alongside the other evidence and that the findings at paragraphs [40] to [51] of the decision demonstrated a careful consideration of the documentary material. Ms Newton further submitted that, whilst the FtT accepted the Appellant had suffered a gunshot wound, it was entitled not to accept that the injury was inflicted by the Awami League. The medical evidence did not contain a clear diagnosis of PTSD and the GP evidence only suggested that the Appellant might have PTSD.
c. As to the alleged detention and torture, Ms Newton submitted that the FtT had plainly considered that aspect of the claim. The basis of claim was accurately recorded, and the FtT gave adequate reasons for rejecting the Appellant’s account, including the claim that he had been detained and remanded following arrest. At paragraph [61] the FtT explained why it did not accept that the Appellant had been arrested, detained or prosecuted as claimed, having first found the supporting documents to be unreliable. The FtT was not required to provide detailed findings on every item of evidence and had complied with the duty to give reasons.
d. With regard to the documentary evidence, the FtT correctly reminded itself that there was no obligation on the Respondent to verify documents and it was entitled to attach little weight to the material relied upon by the Appellant. The FtT considered the November 2024 CPIN concerning the prevalence of fraudulent Bangladeshi documents and identified a range of concerns extending beyond those challenged in the grounds, including inconsistencies within the documents themselves and the Appellant’s failure to establish a reliable chain of custody. Whether the documents were authentic and what weight should be attached to them were matters for the FtT.
e. In respect of the expert evidence, the FtT did not reject the report in isolation but assessed it against the background of the adverse credibility findings. The FtT was entitled to observe that the expert’s conclusions depended substantially upon acceptance of the Appellant’s account. Properly read, paragraph [60] of the decision did not state that all politically motivated cases in Bangladesh had been withdrawn but that some cases had been withdrawn and that there was insufficient evidence that the new administration was pursuing false cases against BNP members. The FtT’s treatment of the report was rational and adequately reasoned.
f. In relation to Article 8 and medical matters, the FtT expressly considered the medical evidence before addressing reintegration and proportionality. The FtT took account of the GP evidence and the Appellant’s mental health difficulties but was entitled to conclude that there were no very significant obstacles to reintegration and that suitable treatment would be available in Bangladesh. The findings concerning Article 3, Article 8 and very significant obstacles were open to the FtT on the evidence.
9. Ms Newton submitted that the decision disclosed no material error of law and should be upheld.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
10. The grant of permission centred on whether the FtT’s reasoning disclosed material legal errors, rather than mere disagreement with findings of fact. Having considered the same, we were not satisfied that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of a material error of law.
11. In ground 1 Mr Rashid had submitted that the FtT failed to consider the evidence in the round and improperly compartmentalised the credibility assessment. We do not accept that submission. The FtT expressly directed itself to both Tanveer Ahmed and QC (verification of documents; Mibanga duty) China and recognised both the requirement to consider documentary evidence in the context of all the evidence and the need to reach conclusions by reference to the evidence as a whole. The medical evidence was considered at paragraphs [26] and [27], and the FtT thereafter conducted a detailed assessment of the Appellant's account, documentary evidence, expert evidence and sur place activities before reaching its overall conclusions. Read as a whole, the decision demonstrated that the FtT considered the evidence cumulatively rather than in isolation. The mere fact that the FtT was ultimately unpersuaded by the Appellant's explanations did not establish a failure to comply with the principles in Mibanga v SSHD [2005] EWCA Civ 367 or QC.
12. Nor are we persuaded that the FtT failed properly to engage with the medical evidence. The FtT accepted that the Appellant had suffered a gunshot wound and expressly considered the GP evidence. However, as Ms Newton submitted, the medical evidence fell far short of providing a definitive diagnosis of PTSD. The GP letter recorded only that the appellant "might have PTSD" and no expert psychiatric report was produced. The FtT was therefore entitled to conclude that the evidence established the existence of a wound and mental health difficulties but did not establish that the injury was inflicted by the Awami League or otherwise corroborated the central elements of the protection claim. The weight to be attached to that evidence was a matter for the FtT.
13. In ground 2 Mr Rashid had submitted that the FtT failed adequately to engage with the Appellant's claim that he had been detained and tortured and failed to consider paragraph 339K of the Immigration Rules. Again, we do not accept that criticism. The FtT accurately identified the Appellant's case, including his claimed arrest, detention and alleged false prosecution. The findings at paragraphs [46] to [61] specifically addressed the court documents, First Information Report, arrest warrant and related evidence. Having found those documents unreliable for a number of reasons, the FtT concluded that it did not accept the Appellant had been arrested, detained, remanded or prosecuted as claimed. The Tribunal was not required to make express findings on every item of evidence or every submission advanced by a party (MK (Duty to Give Reasons) Pakistan [2013] UKUT 641)(IAC). Read as a whole, the decision adequately explained why the detention claim was rejected.
14. In ground 3 Mr Rashid had challenged the treatment of the documentary evidence. The starting point, when considering documentation, remains Tanveer Ahmed namely that it is for an Appellant to show that a document upon which he seeks to rely can be relied upon. The burden does not ordinarily shift to the Respondent. The Upper Tribunal in QC confirmed that a duty upon the Respondent to verify documents arose only in limited circumstances, namely where (i) the document is central to the claim; (ii) it is reasonably capable of verification; and (iii) verification would likely resolve the issue of reliability.
15. The FtT correctly directed itself that there was no general obligation upon the Respondent to verify documents and was clearly aware that verification was a disputed issue. The FtT was also entitled to place weight on the Country Information Note: Documentation, Bangladesh (November 2024), which states at paragraph 5.2.1 that the credibility of Bangladeshi documents is generally low because of the high level of corruption and difficulties in verifying information due to the absence of a central database. Paragraph 5.2.2 further notes that fraudulent documents and fraudulently obtained genuine documents remain widespread.
16. The FtT proceeded to assess the documents on their merits. The FtT’s concerns were not confined to the matters identified in the grounds. It identified issues concerning dates, chronology, provenance, chain of custody, inconsistencies within the documents and inconsistencies between the documentary evidence and the appellant's oral account. The finding that the Appellant had failed to establish a reliable chain of custody was plainly material to the assessment required by Tanveer Ahmed. Those were matters properly open to her on the evidence. Even if the reference at paragraph [49] to a "bribe" rather than a "bond" was accepted that was only one of numerous reasons given for rejecting the reliability of the documents and did not affect the outcome.
17. In ground 4, Mr Rashid had submitted the FtT’s handling of the expert evidence was inadequate. The FtT accepted that the political situation in Bangladesh remained fluid and expressly noted the expert's view that the political climate had not fully settled. The FtT was entitled to assess that evidence alongside the CPIN material. In particular, the CPIN Political Parties and Affiliation (Version 3.0, September 2020) states at paragraph 2.4.7 that, in general, low-level members of opposition parties are unlikely to be of ongoing interest to the authorities and are unlikely to be subjected to treatment sufficiently serious to amount to persecution, whereas opposition activists with a higher profile and whose activities challenge or threaten the government may be exposed to harassment, arrest or politically motivated charges. The FtT expressly referred to this guidance and was entitled to conclude that, even taking the Appellant's case at its highest, the evidence did not establish that he occupied a sufficiently prominent political position to place him within the latter category.
18. The FtT was entitled to observe that the expert's conclusions were substantially dependent upon acceptance of the Appellant's factual account. Having rejected that account for sustainable reasons, the FtT was entitled to attach limited weight to those parts of the report which depended upon its truth.
19. Furthermore, paragraph [60] of the decision did not state that all politically motivated cases had been withdrawn. Rather, the FtT noted that cases were being withdrawn and concluded that there was insufficient evidence that the current authorities were pursuing false cases against individuals such as the Appellant. That was a conclusion open to it on the evidence before it.
20. In ground 5, Mr Rashid had argued that the FtT failed adequately to consider the Appellant's mental health when assessing reintegration and Article 3. We do not agree. The FtT referred to the medical evidence at the outset of its findings, considered article 8 at paragraphs [84] to [99], and then devoted a separate section of the decision to Article 3 medical issues at paragraphs [100] to [111]. The FtT directed itself by reference to AM (Zimbabwe) v SSHD [2020] UKSC 17 and identified the relevant threshold. It also considered the evidence regarding treatment availability in Bangladesh.
21. In circumstances where there was no definitive PTSD diagnosis, no expert psychiatric evidence and no evidence demonstrating an inability to access treatment in Bangladesh, the conclusions reached by the FtT were plainly open to it. The absence of a specific reference to mental health within paragraph [85] did not demonstrate that the issue was ignored when the decision is read in its entirety.
22. Drawing the matters together, the FtT identified the relevant issues, directed itself by reference to the correct legal principles, considered the documentary, medical and expert evidence, and gave sustainable reasons for the conclusions reached.
23. The grounds sought to re-argue the factual merits of the appeal and amount to no more than disagreement with findings that were reasonably open to the FtT.
24. We are therefore satisfied that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve the making of a material error of law.

Notice of Decision
The appeal is dismissed.

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Alis
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

22 July 2026