Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-002514
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/59279/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

7th September 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LOUGHRAN

Between

MC
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr S Hyder, of Westbrook Law Ltd
For the Respondent: Mr E Tufan, Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 29 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
1. The appellant appeals with the limited grant of permission of First-tier Tribunal Judge Dainty against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Graves (“the judge”) dated 25 March 2026.
Background
2. The appellant, a citizen of Bangladesh, arrived in the United Kingdom on 23 November 2009 with leave to enter as a student under Tier 4.
3. The appellant claimed asylum on 4 March 2022 on the basis that he was a member of the BNP and had received threats on social media. He stated that he feared the Awami League.
4. In a decision dated 11 October 2023, the respondent refused the appellant’s protection and human rights claim. The respondent accepted that the appellant was a supporter of the BNP and had posted some political material online but did not consider that he would be at risk as a result.
The Appeal to the First-tier Tribunal
5. The appellant appealed against the refusal of his protection and human rights claim. His appeal came before the judge on 10 December 2025 and again for submissions on 3 March 2026. The hearing was held remotely via Cloud Video Platform. The appellant was represented. The appellant and one other witness gave evidence and the judge records that she treated the appellant as a vulnerable witness.
6. In a decision dated 25 March 2026, the judge dismissed the appellant’s appeal. The judge did not believe that the appellant had any deeply held political motivations, that there was any real prosecution against him or threat to him in Bangladesh or that anyone would be motivated to harm him as a consequence of any real or perceived political profile. The judge considered that, even if the appellant’s claim was accepted, both sufficiency of protection and internal relocation were available to the appellant. The judge found that there were not very significant obstacles to his relocation and the decision was a proportionate interference with the appellant’s Article 8 rights.
The Appeal to the Upper Tribunal
7. The appellant applied for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal.
8. In a decision, dated 18 May 2026 the First tier Tribunal granted the appellant permission to appeal on two of his seven grounds. The appellant did not make an application to renew the grounds he was refused permission on.
9. The grounds the appellant has permission to pursue are the following:
Ground 2: The judge failed to adequately engage with the expert evidence and country background evidence that corroborated the appellant’s account.
Ground 7: The judge failed to adequately engage with the expert country evidence and country background evidence in respect to the change in country situation.
10. The respondent did not provide a response under Rule 24 of the Upper Tribunal Procedure Rules.
11. I heard submissions from Mr Hyder for the appellant and Mr Tufan for the Secretary of State at the hearing.

Discussion
12. At the hearing, I informed the parties that I was satisfied that the judge had made a material error of law and that my written reasons would follow.
13. I am satisfied that I can deal with both grounds together.
14. A country expert, Saqib Mahbub, provided a 72-page report dated 10 June 2024 and a further supplementary 23-page report dated 10 May 2024.
15. There are only two references to this expert evidence in the judge’s decision.
16. At paragraph 24, the judge outlined some of the Home Office Presenting Officer’s submissions in respect of aspects of the expert evidence.
17. At paragraph 34, the judge recorded:
“I must assess evidence through the lens, so to speak, of the country information and expert report, which does support some historic previous targeting of low level opposition political activists, such as for the BNP and its student wing, and members of perceived anti government organisations in Bangladesh under the Awami League government. It also supports some adverse interest in relation to digital and online political activity and that large numbers of politically motivated cases are now being withdrawn.”
18. The judge therefore acknowledged that the expert evidence corroborated the appellant’s account. However, the judge did not include it in her assessment of the appellant’s credibility. I am satisfied that amounts to an error of law.
19. Mr Tufan accepted that the references to the expert evidence at paragraphs 24 and 34 are the only references to the expert evidence in the decision but sought to persuade me that even if the judge had erred in her approach to the expert evidence it was not material because of the change in country conditions i.e. the Awami League no longer being in government.
20. In the supplementary report, the expert concludes that the appellant had a politically motivated case against him and, notwithstanding the change in country conditions, the risk remains. This evidence is not addressed at all in the decision.
21. The decision is lengthy and detailed. However, I am satisfied that the judge did not adequately engage with the expert reports or give sufficient, or indeed any, reasons for rejecting them.
22. The reports support the appellant’s account and address ongoing risk to the appellant notwithstanding the change in country conditions.
23. I am satisfied that the judge’s failure to address the expert evidence is a material error of law, justifies setting aside the decision as a whole and that no findings of fact can be preserved.
Disposal
24. Applying AEB [2022] EWCA Civ 1512 and Begum (Remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 00046 (IAC) I have considered whether to retain the matter for re-making in the Upper Tribunal in line with the general principles set out in Statement 7 of the Senior President’s Practice Statement. I am satisfied that it should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal because credibility is in issue and significant findings of fact will be re-made.
Notice of Decision
25. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal contains material errors of law. Accordingly, it is set aside in its entirety with no findings of fact preserved.
26. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh hearing to be heard by a different judge.

G. Loughran

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

2 September 2026