Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-003868

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/57486/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

12th October 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WEBB

Between

JO
(Anonymity Order Made)
Appellant
And

Secretary of State for the HOme Department
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Ahmed (Counsel)
For the Respondent: Ms Sherwood (Senior Presenting Officer)

Heard at Field House on 8 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 him. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS

1. This is an appeal by the appellant against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal Judge (the Judge), promulgated on 24 January 2026, refusing his appeal. The decision was made following an oral hearing on 23 January 2026. Permission to appeal was granted on all grounds by the Upper Tribunal on 05 August 2026.

2. I have decided to make an anonymity order because the importance of properly discharging the obligations of the United Kingdom under the refugee convention outweigh the principle of open justice. This case raises issues about the appellant’s potential risk on return to his country of nationality and it is appropriate that his identity be protected.

The hearing

3. I had before me a 259-page bundle that contained the decision being appealed, grounds of appeal, decision on permission, and all the documents that were before the First-tier Tribunal.

4. I heard arguments from Mr Ahmed and Ms Sherwood in relation to the grounds of appeal.

5. After hearing the arguments, I said that I would not be able to give my decision at the hearing. I now give my decision in writing.

Errors of law

6. When assessing if there have been errors of law the starting position is that I should exercise judicial restraint before interfering with a decision of a Judge of the First-tier Tribunal, as explained by the higher courts on many occasions.

Ground 1

7. Ground 1 argues that the Judge failed to consider what effect the appellant’s mental health difficulties may have had on his evidence when assessing the weight to give to discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence.

8. Mr Ahmed accepted that in §13 the Judge recorded that in assessing the appellant’s credibility they took into account that he was on medication for depressed mood. However, Mr Ahmed argued that the Judge failed to take into account the appellant’s evidence in his supplementary witness statement that he had difficulty remembering matters.

9. Mr Ahmed further argued that it was incumbent on the Tribunal to engage with the appellant’s vulnerabilities in line with the relevant Presidential Guidance on vulnerable witnesses even in the absence of the matter being raised by those representing an appellant.

10. In her submissions, Ms Sherwood argued that there was no error because there was no supporting evidence in the appellant’s medical records that demonstrated he was experiencing memory loss. She referred me to Khan [2026] EWCA Civ 148 and argued that a failure to expressly refer to the Presidential Guidance did not without more create an error of law.

11. I remind myself that reasons need only be adequate. The Judge clearly had in mind that the appellant had poor mental health. That there was no express mention of the Presidential Guidance or the appellant’s evidence that his memory was affected does not create an error of law where the vulnerability has been identified by the Judge, what matters is the substance of the Judge’s decision. The weight any poor mental health had in the assessment of the appellant’s credibility was a matter for the Judge and they came to conclusions that were open to them on the evidence provided.

12. I find the ground does not demonstrate an error of law.

Ground 2

13. Ground 2 argues that the Judge failed to adequately consider the appellant’s suicidal ideation when assessing very significant obstacles to reintegration.

14. Mr Ahmed accepted that the Judge expressly engaged with the appellant’s depressive mood in the assessment but argued the Judge should have gone on to consider the suicidal ideation that was apparent from the medical documents.

15. That argument is in my view misconceived. The medical evidence before the Judge recorded that any suicidal ideation was not present when the appellant was medicated. The Judge further found that the country information demonstrated the medication would be available to the appellant on return.

16. I find that it was not an error of law for the Judge to fail to expressly deal with the appellant’s suicidal ideation when the unchallenged findings would lead to a conclusion that it would not arise in any event.

17. The ground does not demonstrate an error of law.

Conclusion on errors of law

18. I find for the reasons set out above that the decision of the Judge did not contain any material errors of law.

Notice of decision

19. The decision of the Judge promulgated on 24 January 2026 does not contain material errors of law.

20. This appeal is dismissed on all grounds, and the decision of the First-tier Tribunal stands.

N Webb

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
08 October 2026