Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-002523
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/65724/2024
LP/14317/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

24th August 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE McWILLIAM

Between

LBP
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr J Martin, Counsel instructed by Londonium solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr E Terrell, Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 23 July 2026

DECISION AND REASONS
Introduction
1. The appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh. Her date of birth is 25 January 1990. She has been granted permission by the First-tier Tribunal (F-tT) to appeal against the decision of the F-tT (Judge Phull) to dismiss her appeal against the decision of the respondent on 13 October 2023 to refuse her claim for asylum.
2. The appellant was granted a student visa on 14 September 2021 which expired on 3 June 2023. She came to the UK on 16 October 2021, and she made an application for asylum on 23 May 2022.
3. The appellant says that she is at risk on return to Bangladesh on the basis of her membership of Chhatra Dol which is the student wing of the Bangladesh National Party (BNP) which she joined in 2010. She became an unpaid secretary for Chhatra Dol from 2012 until 2017. In 2021 she became the publishing secretary for the party.
4. The appellant’s case is that she has posted on social media since coming to the UK on 7 January 2022, 20 April 2022, 5 June 2022 and 14 June 2022 opposing the government. A police complaint was made about her on 8 January 2022. As a result, the Awami League (AL) attacked her house in Bangladesh and threatened her mother. A warrant was issued for her arrest by the authorities in Bangladesh and a judgement made against her in absentia.
The Grounds of Appeal
5. There are three grounds of appeal as follows:
i. The F-tT has erred in the assessment of the appellant's evidence.
ii. The F-tT has erred in the assessment of the expert evidence
iii. The F-tT has made irrational findings.
The decision of the FtT
6. The judge found that the appellant’s evidence focused on issues relating to sur place activity and not when she was involved with the student wing of the BNP when in Bangladesh. The judge said that her evidence did not suggest that posting on social media platforms to a wide audience nationally and internationally while she was in Bangladesh led to adverse interest in her. The judge did not find it credible that she was able to continue with her activities for the student wing of the BNP for almost eleven years during which time she avoided attracting adverse attention. The judge considered that the appellant left Bangladesh using her own passport after securing a visa for the UK without experiencing problems. The judge said that even if he was wrong about that, the AL had no interest in her because at most she was a low-level member and or supporter of the BNP.
7. The judge did not accept the appellant's evidence about an arrest warrant was credible or that there has been a court judgement in absentia. The judge said that the BNP party is now in power. He said that the appellant's evidence was that she avoided adverse attention from the AL whilst in Bangladesh despite being active on social media as their publicity secretary. The judge said that no arrest warrants were issued against her at that time. The judge found that the appellant did not provide a reasonable explanation why an alleged arrest warrant was issued in 2022 but not when she was posting online in Bangladesh.
8. The judge took into account a news article upon which the appellant relied which supported that false cases registered against BNP party members and supporters remained pending and the party was questioning the interim government why the cases had not been withdrawn.
9. The appellant relied on a country expert, Mr Reza, a barrister at law in Bangladesh. No issue was taken about the expert’s qualifications. The judge said Mr Reza referred to objective evidence from the middle of 2025 to the date of his report. The judge said that Mr Reza had not set out how many reports he has prepared as a country expert on UK asylum cases since August 2024, after the AL were ousted.
10. The judge found at [26] that Mr Reza’s report contradicted the appellant's account of a false criminal case being registered against her. The judge said that Mr Reza’s evidence was that the appellant was able to leave Bangladesh because “... no criminal case was lodged against her...” The judge set out what the appellant told Mr Reza about her activities in Bangladesh.
11. The judge said that there was no evidence to suggest that the appellant had instructed Mr Reza to access the records from the court docket to verify the veracity of the information in the documents. The judge said that the expert stated that he had examined the certified copies of the documents that he was sent and on the basis of his experience in the Bangladeshi courts he confirmed that the documents resembled copies of the originals which had been requested from the relevant court office. He said, however, that he had not personally accessed the records from the court docket and therefore cannot verify or comment on the veracity of the specific information contained in the two documents.
12. The judge thought it significant considering the prevalence of forged documents from Bangladesh that the appellant had instructed a lawyer to prepare a country report, but he had not verified the documents. The judge said, “I find there is a reasonable degree of likelihood that Mr Reza and the appellant’s lawyer who sent the documents to her initially were not instructed to verify the Bangladeshi documents because that would not have assisted her asylum appeal”. The judge said that the appellant's account of the arrest warrant and final judgement had been fabricated to “bolster a weak claim”.
13. The judge went on to find in the alternative that the political situation had moved on in Bangladesh and that the appellant would not be at risk.
Conclusions
14. The respondent relied on a response under Rule 24. I heard oral submissions from the representatives. I will engage with these in my conclusions.
15. The grounds of appeal overlap and make points which were not pursued by Mr Martin. He made points which are not raised in the grounds. In so far as the grounds rely on the case of MAH (Egypt) v SSHD [2023] EWCA Civ 216, Mr Martin said that he would not be pursuing this.
Grounds one and three
16. In so far as the grounds of appeal concern [26] of the judge’s decision, I do not accept that the judge erred in that there was any misunderstanding of the timeline. The judge understood that the appellant’s case was that while she was in Bangladesh proceedings had not been issued against her.
17. The judge did not accept that an arrest warrant or judgement in absentia had been issued. The judge found that the appellant had been actively posting material against the AL whilst in Bangladesh for many years and there was no reasonable explanation why an alleged warrant was issued after she had left the country. The issue in the grounds is that the F-tT failed to consider that the appellant’s political activities and sur place activities may have attracted attention from the authorities only after her departure. This was recast by Mr Martin. He effectively raised a new ground. He said that the appellant’s evidence was that her activities had changed throughout the period. He drew my attention to the appellant’s witness statement (page 36 of the appellant’s bundle) wherein she said that she was appointed in 2012 as the Female Secretary of the Chatradal Unit at MC. She said that this was a role that required her to lead and mobilise female students to participate in political discussions and rallies, organise meetings and coordinate with senior leaders. She said that she remained in this post until 2017. She said that she became an official member of the BNP in 2021 and she was appointed Female Secretary of the Bangladesh Jatiotabadi Mohiladal (BJM) and later that year she was promoted to the position of Publicity Secretary within the same unit. She said that the latter role placed her in a position of responsibility over public relations, organising protests, managing media coverage, writing statements, coordinating the publication of party materials and content on social media platforms and ensuring that the BNP’s message reached a wide audience both nationally and internationally.
18. The point made by Mr. Martin was that the finding of the judge is undermined by the appellant's evidence that her role was not posting on social media until 2021 which would explain why she did not come to the attention of the authorities whilst in Bangladesh despite having been involved with the party since 2010. The problem with the issue is that it is not raised in the grounds of appeal and there has been no application to amend the grounds. I also accept the point made by Mr Terrell that it is not known from the decision what the appellant said in oral evidence which may have helped inform the judge’s findings. I note that the judge set out the appellant’s evidence at [16] reflecting what she said in her witness statement. However, the appellant’s evidence has never been advanced on the basis that the nature of her activities has changed which would have latterly increased interest in her by the authorities. From the evidence given and the way in which the case was advanced it was a reasonable inference to draw that the appellant had been posting on social media throughout her time with the party and engaged in online activities that would have come to the attention of the authorities.
19. It is contended that the judge’s conclusion that the appellant's account was implausible solely because she did not face immediate consequences for her political activism is irrational. I do not accept that this was the sole reason for not accepting the appellant’s account. Moreover, I find that the reference to “immediate consequences” mischaracterises the finding of the judge. The judge considered the evidence as a whole, including the expert evidence to which I will turn when considering ground two. I accept the point made by Mr Martin that the appellant wouldn't necessarily know what is in the mind of the authorities; however, in this case the evidence was that the appellant's activities in Bangladesh took place over an extensive period of time and that she continued the same activities whilst in the UK. The judge was entitled to query the timing of the authorities’ interest in the appellant.
Ground two
20. I agree with Mr Martin that the point made by the judge at [25] is not relevant. Whether or not the expert has prepared a report since the ousting of the AL is immaterial. However, properly read, I do not accept that this was a factor determinative of the judge’s decision.
21. The expert was instructed by the appellant’s solicitors to address six points including, whether the case documents appear to be genuine on the face of them and properly obtained. The expert had before him certified copies of the FIR, the charge sheet, arrest warrant and the court judgement. He said that he examined them. He gave his opinion about the documents at [32]-[35]. While he said that he had not personally accessed the records from the court docket and could therefore not verify or comment on the veracity of the specific information contained therein, his evidence was that the documents bear all the hallmarks of properly obtained certified court records as per the standard practice in Bangladesh”. The expert was not able to verify the content of the documents, but he gave an opinion on the apparent genuineness of them. The judge rejected the evidence for two reasons: (1) the expert had not been instructed to verify the documents and (2) the prevalence of forged documents in Bangladesh. I have taken on board Mr Martin's submission that the judge did not consider what the expert said and only what he did not say. I do not accept that there is anything to support that the judge did not properly weigh up the evidence of the expert. It was not necessary to set out the report in detail and the parts of it that were capable of supporting the appellant’s case. The documents were a significant part of the appellant’s case, and the judge was entitled to attach weight to the absence of verification and the prevalence of forged documents in Bangladesh.
22. There were elections in Bangladesh on the 12 February 2026, and the BNP party won. Therefore, the AL is no longer in power. On this basis the judge at [31] found in the alternative that as the BNP is in government, the appellant would not be at risk on return. This finding was open to him on the evidence.
23. There is no error of law in the decision of the F-tT.

Joanna McWilliam

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
8 August 2026