BAILII
British and Irish Legal Information Institute


Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments >> UI2025000221 [2025] UKAITUR UI2025000221 (2 May 2025)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2025/UI2025000221.html
Cite as: [2025] UKAITUR UI2025000221

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

 

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL

IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER

Case No: UI-2025-000221

First-tier Tribunal No : PA/62127/2023

 

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

 

2 nd May 2025

 

Before

 

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CANAVAN

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DAVIES

 

Between

 

JM

(Anonymity order made)

Appellant

and

 

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

Representation :

For the Appellant: Mr M Hasan, Solicitor of Kalam Solicitors

For the Respondent: Ms S Cunha, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

 

Heard at Field House on 25 March 2025

 

DECISION AND REASONS

1.               This is an appeal by JM ("the Appellant") against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Loughridge ("the Judge") heard at Taylor House on 12 November 2024.

2.               The Appellant appeals against the Judge's decision to dismiss the Appellant's appeal in relation to asylum and protection grounds.

3.               Permission was granted by First Tier Tribunal Judge C J Gumsley on 16 January 2025. The reasons for granting permission were:

2. It is noted that the Judge refers to taking judicial notice of various media reports in addition to the objective material before him. It is not clear what these reports were. It is arguable that the FtT Judge materially erred in law by reaching conclusions which took into account matters which were not before him, and/or did not set out the information upon which he was relying, so as to allow for comment and submissions to be made on it.

3. Consequently permission to appeal is granted.

4.               Before the Judge, it was accepted by the Respondent that the Appellant held a role as a Publicity Secretary for his local branch of the BNP while in Bangladesh and that after he left the country, threats were made against him by local Awami League supporters who visited his home. It was also accepted by the Respondent that the Appellant had been politically active in the UK by attending various demonstrations.

5.               The grounds of appeal and oral submissions relate to the Judge's approach to materials relating to the situation in Bangladesh since the events of August 2024 when Sheikh Hasina of the Awami League ceased to be Prime Minister. In essence, it is argued that the materials placed before the Judge did not support the findings as to political events in Bangladesh and consequently resulted in an error of law in the Judge's assessment of risk to the Appellant on return.

6.               It is important to record that, at paragraph 18 of the determination, the Judge stated:

In addition to the objective material put before me by the parties I take judicial notice of various media reports since the fall of the Awami League government.

7.               It is this paragraph which is referred to in the grant of permission to appeal.

8.               The Judge, at paragraphs 20 - 25, addresses media and other reports placed before him by both Appellant and Respondent.

9.               Both parties had placed information before the Judge, in the form of news reports presented by the Appellant and a COI report dated 22 August 2024 which was produced, without objection by the Appellant, on the day of the First tier Tribunal hearing by the Respondent. The latter report contains appendices with links to media reports. Those linked reports form part of the material before the Judge.

10.           We accept that, in light of paragraph 18 of the Judge's decision, the linked media reports were not the only sources of information upon which the Judge relied.

11.           However, having identified the pieces of country information referred to by the Judge, and cross referenced these to the media reports placed before him by the Appellant and the contents of the COI report, there was agreement between the parties that all the events referenced in the Judge's decision are contained within either the media reports produced by the Appellant, or the COI report, with the exception of information relating to Mr Tarique Rahman, which is discussed further below.

12.           Paragraph 25 of the decision, in analysing risk to the Appellant, records that:

(a)            Begum Khaleda Zia had been imprisoned and then made subject to house arrest in March 2020, and was then released from house arrest by the President after the Awami League government fell [COI report, 2.1.8].

(b)           The Appellant's concern that police were killing BNP members when they go to demonstrations, was a complaint relating to the position prior to the Awami League ceasing to be in power, also in line with the COI report at 1.1.1.

13.           The Appellant also raised the fact that Tarique Rahman, Acting Chairman of the BNP, was in the UK and not allowed to return to Bangladesh. The Judge regarded that as " misinformed", stating that Mr Rahman " has now returned to Bangladesh after more than 15 years in exile and is set to play a leading role in the various reforms and new direction the country seeks to take".

14.           We are unable to identify any source that was before him for the Judge's assertion at para.25 of the decision regarding Mr Rahman having returned to Bangladesh. As the Judge stated that judicial notice had been taken of media reports, we conclude that the information about Mr Rahman may have been identified by the Judge from such reports. There was no material before the Judge as to whether Mr Rahman had, or had not, returned to Bangladesh.

15.           We consider that it was inadvisable of the Judge to have considered media reports about the situation in Bangladesh that were not put before him by the parties. The source of the information is not identified in the decision.

16.           However, we do not find this to be a material error of law. That is because, considering the Judge's decision as a whole, it is clear that all findings (bar that relating to Mr Rahman) as to the country situation were contained within reports before the Judge upon which the parties were able to make submissions. The issue of Mr Rahman's return to Bangladesh was not, in the context of the decision as a whole, material.

17.           The Appellant's submission was that the Judge had erred in concluding that, if a senior BNP figure was able to return to Bangladesh, a lower-level supporter such as the Appellant would also be able to do so. There was, in fact, no information before the Judge as to Mr Rahman's whereabouts. The Judge was able, however, to identify a number of features of the country situation (excluding the return or otherwise of Mr Rahman) relevant to risk to the Appellant, including that the reality of the political situation posed less risk to a low-level supporter than the Appellant argued for. Whether or not a figure such as Mr Rahman had returned to Bangladesh, that overall view was properly open to the Judge on the materials that were before him, and so we conclude that any error in his approach to obtaining media reports was not material.

18.           We also take into account the Judge's alternative finding at paragraph 26 that if there were risk to the Appellant from the Awami League in his home area, he could relocate elsewhere and continue his support for the BNP at the same low level as previously without risk from political opponents. There is no challenge to the finding in the grounds of appeal.

19.           Therefore, even if we are wrong about whether the Judge made an error of law in relation to his approach to the materials, it is clear that his conclusion was reached on an alternative basis, which is not challenged.

20.           In our judgment, there is no material error that impacts the overall conclusion of the case and therefore we do not find that there was a material error of law made by the Judge.

21.           The appeal is dismissed.

 

Notice of Decision

The First-tier Tribunal decision did not involve the making of an error of law

 

Siân Davies

 

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal

Immigration and Asylum Chamber

 

 

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010