Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-004318

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/81984/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 20th of October 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BEACH

Between

ZA
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Aslam, Counsel instructed by RP Singh Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms Keerthy, Senior Home Office 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 and/or any member of his family 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 and/or any member of his family. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant appeals, with permission, against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal, promulgated on 13th June 2025, dismissing the appellant’s appeal against a decision of the Secretary of State made on 11th December 2024, refusing his protection and human rights application.
Background to the appeal
2. ZA is a Pakistan national who arrived in the UK in September 2022 with leave to enter as a Tier 4 student. He claimed asylum on 29th January 2024.
3. The appellant states that he was a social media manager for the Baloch Solidarity Committee and provided social media training for the group. He states that he ran digital campaigns, organised protests and raised awareness via social media. The appellant states that he returned to Pakistan in November 2023 to attend his father’s funeral. He states that members of the Baloch Solidarity Committee visited him on his return to offer their condolences regarding his father’s death and that he was invited to visit them to participate in the organisation of a large protest in Islamabad. The appellant states that he returned to the UK on 5th December 2023. He states that, in December 2023, there was a sit in protest in Islamabad and members of the social media team were arrested by the authorities who then discovered the appellant’s role in the group. He states that, on 21st January 2024, the authorities raided the family home, threatened his brother and stated that they had come to take the appellant. The appellant states that his brother advised him not to return to Pakistan and that he therefore claimed asylum.
The First-tier Tribunal decision
4. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The Judge did not accept that the appellant had demonstrated that he was involved in significant political activities which would put him at risk in Pakistan and that the appellant had not demonstrated significant activity with the Baloch Solidarity Committee. He accepted that the appellant was a supporter of the group and that he had undertaken low level work for them but found that this would not have brought the appellant to the attention of the authorities. The Judge found that the appellant had never been arrested and that he had not been served with any documents by the Pakistan authorities. He noted the letter from the Baloch Solidarity Committee but found that this did not suggest that the appellant was a high level member of the group and did not state that the appellant was in danger as a result of his role managing social media and training. The Judge found that the appellant’s credibility was undermined by the delay in claiming asylum and the return to Pakistan. He noted that there was no evidence from independent organisations such as Amnesty International. The Judge found that the appellant had given a vague account of his activities and had not provided evidence of his claimed social media followers. He found that the appellant had not shown that he was wanted in Pakistan.
The appeal to the Upper Tribunal
5. On 5th August 2026, the First-tier Tribunal granted permission to appeal on all grounds. The Tribunal found that it was arguable that the Judge failed to adequately explain why the appellant was considered to be low level. The Tribunal found that it was arguable that the Judge had given insufficient reasons for making this finding in light of the evidence before the Judge. The Tribunal further found that it was arguable that the Judge failed to engage with the appellant’s account of how and when he came to the attention of the authorities.
The grounds of appeal
Ground 1
6. The appellant submitted that the Judge failed to make relevant findings of fact. The grounds state that the appellant set out his role in the Baloch Solidarity Committee in his witness statement. The appellant submits that the Judge erred in finding that the appellant was a low level supporter particularly when the respondent had accepted, in the reasons for refusal letter, that the appellant was a member of the Baloch Solidarity Committee.
Ground 2
7. The appellant submitted that the Judge misunderstood the appellant’s evidence about when he became the subject of attention from the Pakistan authorities. The grounds state that the appellant’s evidence was that his role in the Baloch Solidarity Committee was only discovered in December 2023, after he had returned to the UK and that this was the reason why he claimed asylum in January 2024. The grounds submit that the Judge had not taken proper account of this evidence when considering the timing of the appellant’s asylum claim and how he was able to leave Pakistan without difficulty.
Ground 3
8. The appellant submitted that the Judge erred in finding that there was no background evidence before him from Amnesty International. The grounds state that the appellant’s skeleton argument contained a citation of an Amnesty International article which was not clearly considered by the Judge.
The Rule 24 response
9. The respondent did not file a Rule 24 response.
The hearing
10. I heard submissions from both parties and indicated at the end of the hearing that I reserved my decision. The submissions are fully set out in the recording of the proceedings.
Error of law decision
11. I bear in mind that an appellate Tribunal should be wary of setting aside a decision by a lower Tribunal. In doing so I apply what was held in in Ullah v SSHD [2024] EWCA Civ 201 at [26]. I further bear in mind what was said in Volpi v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464 at [2] and what was held in HA (Iraq) [2022] UKSC 22 at [72].
12. Mr Aslam, in his submissions, submitted that the Judge made basic errors when assessing the evidence. He submitted that the Judge was incorrect when finding that the appellant was a supporter of the group and not a member and in finding that his work for the group was low level when social media was at the very heart of the group’s influence. Mr Aslam said that the Judge also found that this was work which had not brought the appellant to the attention of the authorities. He submitted that this was a misunderstanding of the appellant’s evidence which was that he had come to the attention of the authorities after social media people were arrested at a December 2023 demonstration and disclosed his identity. In her submissions, Ms Keerthy, submitted that being a social media manager was not inconsistent with being a member doing low level work. She said that there was no evidence to show that the appellant held a formal position. Ms Keerthy submitted that the Judge had not taken an erroneous approach to the assessment of the appellant’s activities or to the assessment of the interest of the authorities in the appellant.
13. It is correct that the Judge erroneously finds that the appellant is a supporter of the Baloch Solidarity Committee and not a member given the respondent accepted, in the reasons for refusal letter, that the appellant was a member of the group. That, in itself, does not automatically mean that there has been a material error of law as the main issue to be decided was whether the appellant’s activities for the group had or would bring him to the attention of the authorities. The Judge goes on to find that the work is low level work and that the appellant had never come to the adverse attention of the authorities, had never been arrested and had never been served with papers by the authorities [15]. He further finds that the appellant’s close family lived in Pakistan without difficulty and that the appellant was able to leave Pakistan with his wife and children without any problems [15].
14. That assessment does not appear to take account of the appellant’s evidence that he became of interest to the authorities after the December 2023 demonstration. The Judge also fails to take account of this evidence when assessing whether the appellant’s credibility was damaged as a result of not claiming asylum until January 2024.
15. In his witness statement, the appellant describes an increase in the group’s activities following the killing of a young man in October 2023. At [11]of the witness statement, the appellant refers to his return to the UK with his wife and children on 5th December 2023 and to the planned demonstration in December 2023. He states that his brother informed him that the authorities raided the family home in January 2024 (when the appellant had returned to the UK) threatening his brother and seeking to take the appellant [12]. The Judge makes reference to this evidence [18] but there is no clear finding as to whether the Judge accepted that evidence or, if he did not accept the evidence, there were no clear reasons as to why he rejected the evidence. The failure to make clear findings on this evidence also affects the Judge’s finding that the appellant did not claim asylum until his visa was due to expire [17]. The appellant had given a potential explanation for this but the Judge makes no clear findings regarding that evidence. As this was, in effect, the core of the appellant’s claim in terms of why he claimed asylum when he did and why he believed himself to be at risk in January 2024 when he had not considered himself to be at risk before, it was incumbent on the Judge to make clear findings about this part of the appellant’s evidence. The Judge makes findings that the appellant was a low level member of the group and about his activities but does not clearly engage with the appellant’s evidence of the incident which he states gave rise to the risk to him.
16. The appellant also submitted that the Judge failed to take account of the Amnesty International article cited within the appellant’s skeleton argument. The Judge was critical about the fact that he did not consider that he had been provided with background evidence from reputable and recognised sources such Amnesty International. An article from Amnesty International, dated 27th March 2025, referring to crackdowns on Baloch activists, was quoted in the appellant’s skeleton argument. There was, therefore, some evidence before the Judge from Amnesty International which was not directly considered by the Judge and which referred to a crackdown on Baloch activists albeit in 2025 rather than 2024 when the appellant claimed asylum. The Judge does not consider that evidence and does not state whether he accepts or rejects it or whether it has no impact on his overall assessment of the appellant’s claim. It potentially had reference to the appellant’s claim given it was from an organisation from whom the Judge had stated he would have liked to see evidence and given it referred to crackdowns on Baloch activists. However, the Judge made no reference to it in his decision.
17. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the First-tier Tribunal decision did involve the making of an error of law.
18. I have considered whether the appeal should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard afresh and have decided that as there is a need for a full credibility assessment, it is appropriate to remit the hearing to be reheard by the First-tier Tribunal.
Notice of decision
1. The First-tier Tribunal decision did involve the making of an error of law
2. I remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard by a different judge. For the avoidance of doubt, none of the findings of fact are preserved.

F Beach
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal,
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
19th October 2026