Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-002209
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/02984/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

31st July 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GIBBS

Between

IU
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr. Seyed, Counsel, Instructed by Link Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms. Keerthy, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 15 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, and any family member 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 by the appellant against the decision of a First-tier Tribunal Judge (the Judge) promulgated on 2 March 2026 who dismissed his protection and human rights appeal.
Background
2. The appellant is a citizen of Pakistan. He arrived in the United Kingdom as a student on 29 August 2022. He claimed asylum on 3 July 2023. The basis of his claim is that he was a “chowkidar” at a girls school which was attacked by the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). The appellant filed a report with the police and consequently was targeted by the TTP which led to him fleeing Pakistan.
Grounds of Appeal
3. There are six grounds of appeal.
4. The first ground is that the judge failed to give adequate reasons for their decision that the appellant would not be at risk on return to Pakistan despite accepting that he was a chowkidar at a girls school which had been attacked by the TTP and about which he had filed a police report.
5. The second ground of appeal is that the judge erred in rejecting the documentary evidence relied on by the appellant.
6. Thirdly that the judge failed to properly consider the principle of non-refoulement.
7. Fourthly that the judge failed to apply the correct burden and standard of proof.
8. The fifth ground is that the judge’s reasoning was speculative.
9. The sixth ground is that the judge erred in that they failed to take into account the appellant’s risk on return and mental health in their proportionality assessment under Article 8 ECHR.
Grant of Permission
10. The Judge granted permission to appeal in respect of Ground 6 only. This is because there is an absence of reference to the appellant’s mental health within the proportionality assessment.
Appeal Hearing
11. The respondent had not filed a rule 24 response.
12. The appellant’s composite bundle was submitted late due to technical difficulties. In the circumstances I made the decision to admit the late evidence.
13. In an undated application found in the composite bundle (p.19) the appellant’s legal representative applied for permission to rely on evidence that was not before the FtT in accordance with rule 15(2A) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008.
14. The evidence falls into two categories. The first is medical evidence including a psychiatric report dated 26 June 2026. The second is evidence from Pakistan. With regards to the medical evidence the application appears to suggest that there has been a deterioration in the appellant’s mental health which has only occurred after the FtT hearing. Also that the documents were only obtained after the hearing. With regards to the evidence from Pakistan these documents came into existence after the FtT hearing. Mr. Syed was unable to add to these reasons.
15. I am satisfied that this new evidence is not relevant to the question of whether the judge made a material error of law. None of this evidence was before them, and some of it was not even in existence. Further, medical evidence pertaining to the appellant’s mental health was before the judge who specifically refers to this at [18] of the decision. If I find that there is an error of law the evidence may be relevant in the re-hearing but for the purposes of this decision I made the decision not to admit any of the evidence referred to in the s.15(2A) application.
16. I asked Mr. Syed if he was seeking to argue any ground of appeal other than Article 8 ECHR. He was unclear in his response and therefore for the sake of completeness I will consider all matters.
17. I heard oral submissions from both parties. I address any submissions of significance in the discussion section below.
Discussion
18. I remind myself of the need for appropriate judicial restraint before interfering with a decision of the First-tier Tribunal, particularly where the fact-finding Judge has considered evidence from a variety of sources and has undertaken an evaluation of it, set in the applicable legal framework. Such decisions must be read holistically and sensibly and that there is no requirement to give reasons for reasons.
19. I will start with consideration of ground 6 which is the ground on which permission was granted. It is asserted that the judge failed to consider the appellant’s:
“length of residence (over 3 years 5 months at the date of hearing), his integration or the mental health impact of removal.”
20. However, I find that in [30] of the decision, in their consideration of the appellant’s Article 8 ECHR rights within the Immigration Rules the judge gives clear and careful consideration to all relevant factors.
“30. The appellant’s reasons for not being able to integrate back into Pakistan were due to the risks that he faces from the TTP, for reasons given above, I do not accept this account. The appellant is a young man aged 31. He is educated, as in interview he stated as a BTEC in civil Engineering. He has family in Pakistan, namely his parents. The appellant states that he does not know where they are, but I am unclear why he would loose (sic) contact with them. Thus I do not accept this. He has been in the UK since August 2022, some 3 years and 5 months as at the date of hearing. This I find is a relatively short period of time and one within which one would not lose cultural ties. The appellant lived in Pakistan until he was approximately 28 years old, thus he has spent a significant proportion of his formative years in the country. He continues to converse in Pashtu and Urdu (40/RB) both languages are spoken in Pakistan. Therefore there are no language barriers. There is no evidence before me as to why the appellant would be unable to work if returned.”
21. With regards to the appellant’s mental health I find that there is no reference to these in original appellant’s skeleton argument and there is no evidence that this issue was raised before the judge with regards to the appellant’s Article 8 ECHR rights. Further, I am satisfied that at [18] the judge refers to the appellant’s insomnia since 2024 and diagnosis depressive disorder on 1 July 2025 and that they did therefore consider this aspect of the appellant’s claim in the decision, and therefore within their Article 8 ECHR assessment. There was no evidence before the judge specifically addressing how the appellant’s mental health diagnosis would impact him on return to Pakistan or that he would be unable to access treatment.
22. The judge does not repeat the considerations at [30] in the paragraphs which follow and in which the appellant’s Article 8 ECHR rights (outside the Immigration Rules) are considered. This is not an error of law. It is unnecessary for the judge to repeat their evidence and findings and it is self-evidence from [30] that they had given careful consideration to all factors affecting the appellant’s Article 8 ECHR rights that were raised before them.
23. The judge did not make made a material error of law in their consideration of the Article 8 ECHR aspect of the appeal.
24. Permission was not granted on the remaining grounds. Mr. Syed indicated that he wanted me to consider them in any event and for the sake of completeness I will do so
25. Ground 1 is not made out. The judge has given careful consideration to the appellant’s evidence, accepting aspects of his claim and dismissing others with clear reasons:
“25. Having carefully considered the above account in its entirety, on balance I am satisfied the appellant worked in a girls school as a chowkidar. I am also satisfied that the school was attacked. I am also prepared to accept that the appellant filed a police report against the attackers. I am not however satisfied the appellant was targeted as a consequence of this attack and his report. The evidence of targeting since is based on letters from people the appellant knows. Thus, they are not independent. For reasons given above I do not find credible.”
26. With regards to Grounds 2 and 5 the judge properly applied AHMED (Documents unreliable and forged) Pakistan * [2002] UKIAT 00439.
27. Regarding Grounds 3 and 4 the judge properly applied JCK (s.32 NABA 2022) (Botswana) [2024] UKUT 00100 (IAC). No error of law was made.

Notice of Decision
28. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal does not involve the making of an error on a point of law. The appellant’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.

L K Gibbs
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
20 July 2026