AY v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/73624/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Birmingham On 29 September 2026 Before FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL JUDGE E HICKEY Between AY (ANONYMITY ORDER MADE) and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT Appellant Respondent Representation: For the Appellant: For the Respondent: No representative and did not attend Ms Shah, Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS 1. This is the decision of the Tribunal in the appeal of the Appellant against the decision of the Respondent made on 10 October 2024. Anonymity 2. I have decided to make an anonymity direction because the importance of facilitating the discharge of the obligations of the United Kingdom under the Refugee Convention in the circumstances of this case outweighs the principle of open justice. Background 3. The appellant is a national of Eritrea who states that he left Eritrea with his parents as a young child and subsequently lived in Sudan and Libya before travelling through © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2026 Appeal number: PA/73624/2024 Italy and France and arriving in the United Kingdom in October 2022. He claims that he cannot return to Eritrea because he left the country illegally and fears that the Eritrean authorities would detain or kill him upon return because of that illegal exit. He relies upon his Eritrean nationality, his history of departure from Eritrea, and his asserted fear of persecution and serious harm on return.

4. The respondent relies upon the refusal decision dated 10 October 2024 and maintains that the protection claim should be refused. The respondent identifies as the principal issue whether the appellant is a credible witness. The respondent does not accept that the appellant is Eritrean or that he left Eritrea illegally. The Hearing 5.

6. The hearing was recorded. That recording is the record of proceedings and should be consulted in the event of any dispute about what was said at the hearing. The Appellant did not attend and was not represented. I considered rule 28 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014. The appeal had initially been lodged on the Appellant’s behalf by solicitors. They made several applications for extension of time because they had lost contact with the appellant. The last such application was made on 25 October 2025 which indicated that they had been unable to contact the appellant after several attempts and were going to seek to email him and if he did not contact them, they would come off the record. It does not appear that they had any success since they then came off the record on 15 December 2025. The tribunal then sent two letters, dated 16 December 2025 and 30 December 2025 to the address the appellant had provided the tribunal; informing the appellant that this had happened and advising him of how to obtain access to the online portal. The Appellant has not subsequently engaged with the appeal. No application, correspondence or explanation for his absence had been received by the time of the hearing.

7. On 15 June 2026 the notice of today’s hearing was posted on the online portal and was sent to the respondent. A notification is noted in the ‘notifications’ section of the online portal stating that a letter has been sent but it does not state to who and the attachment is blank. However, the stitched bundle was sent to him by post to his last known address prior to the hearing and this contains a copy of the notice of hearing. The bundle is dated 22 September 2026. In addition, the stitched bundle was uploaded onto the online portal on 22 September 2026.

8. I was satisfied that reasonable steps had been taken to notify the Appellant of the hearing. I was further satisfied that it was in the interests of justice to proceed in the Appellant’s absence. He had not complied with the Tribunal’s directions. He had not filed an explanation of his case, a witness statement, an appellant’s bundle or an application for an adjournment. There was no explanation before me for his absence. Having regard to the overriding objective and the history of the proceedings, I concluded that it was fair and just to determine the appeal. I was not satisfied that any further delay was justified. I draw no adverse inference from the absence itself, but I note that he has not availed himself of the opportunity to answer the respondent's criticisms." Appeal number: PA/73624/2024 Issues 9. Ms Shah conceded the following: (a) Taking the appellant's claim at its highest, there was a Convention reason; namely imputed political opinion. (b) That if the appellant can satisfy me that he is a national of Eritrea then the appellant would succeed. It would be reasonably likely that the Appellant would be persecuted for that Convention reason, there would not be sufficient protection available and he could not reasonably internally relocate?

10. Equally, it follows that if the Appellant is unable to satisfy me that he is a national of Eritrea, then he would be unable to prove that he is outside Eritrea owing to a well- founded fear of persecution, that he would face a real risk of suffering serious harm if returned there, or that his removal would result in a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Evidence 11. I confirmed with Ms Shah that I had all the uploaded evidence contained in the 174- page stitched bundle. Legal Framework 12. To succeed in an appeal on asylum grounds, the appellant must show a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason (race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, political opinion). The burden of proof rests on the appellant. As the asylum claim was made on or after 28 June 2022, pursuant to s32 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, in considering whether the appellant qualifies as a refugee, I must apply a two-stage test. As per the guidance from JCK (s.32 NABA 2022) Botswana [2024] UKUT 00100 I must first determine the following matters on the balance of probabilities: (a) Taking the appellant's claim at its highest, is there a convention reason? (b) Does the appellant fear persecution for that convention reason?

13. If so, I must go on to determine whether it is reasonably likely that: (a) The appellant would be persecuted for that Convention reason; (b) There would not be sufficient protection available; and (c) The appellant could not internally relocate.

14. To succeed on an appeal on humanitarian protection grounds the Appellant must not be a refugee; they must show substantial grounds for believing that they would face a real risk of suffering serious harm in their country of origin. The burden of proof rests on the Appellant. Appeal number: PA/73624/2024 15. In so far as they rely on article 8 outside the Rules it is for the appellant to show that article 8(1) of the ECHR is engaged and if so, it is for the respondent to show that the decision was in accordance with the law, made in pursuance of a legitimate aim and that it was proportionate to the legitimate aim. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. Sections 117A to 117D of the 2002 Act are relevant to any assessment under article 8 of the ECHR outside the Rules.

16. My approach to assessing credibility comes from KB & AH (credibility-structured approach) Pakistan [2017] UKUT 491 (IAC) where the Upper Tribunal commended consideration of sufficiency of detail, internal consistency, external consistency and plausibility. I consider any documents along with all the evidence in the round. I am also conscious that just because a person has lied about one thing does not mean he has lied about another.

17. Section 8 Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004 means that behaviour designed or likely to conceal information, mislead, obstruct or delay consideration of a claim, and claims made after a negative decision has been made or after there was an opportunity to make a claim in a safe country are damaging to credibility.

FINDINGS 18. Whilst I am bound to be selective in my references to the evidence before me, I have considered all the documentary evidence in the stitched bundle and the submissions of Ms Shah. I have carefully considered all the evidence in the round. I shall refer to the evidence and submissions as necessary to explain my findings and reasons. Is the Appellant a national of Eritrea?

19. The appellant’s account is that he was born in Eritrea and left that country with his parents in approximately May 2000 when he was 7 years old. He maintains that his departure from Eritrea was unlawful. Following his departure, he lived in Sudan for 15 years, initially in refugee camps, before spending periods in both Sudan and Libya. He states that he remained outside Eritrea continuously thereafter and eventually travelled by boat to Italy in June 2021 before moving to France and subsequently entering the United Kingdom by small boat on 23 October 2022. He states that his mother remains living in a refugee camp in Sudan.

20. On the available evidence I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Appellant is a national of Eritrea. I have not found the appellant’s account to be credible for the following reasons: 21. Firstly, as set out in the respondent's refusal decision, when asked a series of probing questions concerning Eritrea, the appellant was frequently unable to provide answers or provided inaccurate responses. His knowledge of basic matters relating to Eritrea, including geographical, cultural and national information that would reasonably be expected of an Eritrean national, was limited and inconsistent. I have taken into account the appellant’s claim that he was 7 years old when he left and so can hardly be expected to recollect much in the way of specific detail but I find that the appellant's inability to answer several straightforward questions, together with the Appeal number: PA/73624/2024 inaccuracies identified in his responses, undermines the reliability of his claim to be Eritrean and I give this some weight. He has failed to provide any explanation to rebut the criticisms by way of a witness statement or by attending.

22. Secondly, the appellant gave several answers to questions regarding the detail of his journey from Eritrea. The respondent has challenged the details he gave. He said that Lafa was very close to Kassala (AIR2 Q54) whereas in the decision the respondent asserted that external evidence demonstrated that it was almost a 7-hour drive away. When discussing the journey from Teseney to El Lafa he said that they travelled on foot and horse cart and departed at 10am and arrived the next day around the same time. The respondent asserts in the refusal decision that external evidence shows that it would take four days and not one. Although on the appellant’s case he states he was seven, he does not assert in these answers that he does not know, or cannot remember, or at best is guessing. He gives straightforward answers to the questions. Having challenged the appellant’s account, the appellant has done nothing to counter the criticisms either by way of a witness statement or objective evidence and I give this significant weight.

23. Thirdly, the appellant confirmed that he was still in contact with his mother in Sudan in his substantive interview on 8 August 2024 (Q35 AIR1). In his second substantive interview (AIR2) he confirmed that he had been given refugee documentation whilst in Sudan (Q58- Q62). He was unsure whether his mother still had the documentation and he would ask her and seek to provide it within 5 days. At the end of the interview, he agreed that he would seek to get a translation of his mother’s ID documentation and evidence of his refugee status. There is a reference in the refusal decision to the appellant having provided an identification document which is untranslated but which the decision maker rejects in any event as the image is not of the appellant (referred to as EV). At the end of AIR2 the appellant had agreed to provide a copy of a translation of the mother’s ID. This document has not been produced and is not in the stitched bundle. It is therefore unclear whether this purports to be the appellant’s ID as the decision maker appears to believe or the mother’s that was referred to in AIR. The appellant has provided no evidence or explanation to assist me. Ms Shah submitted that his failure to provide the documents should positively undermine his credibility but given the confusion I do not consider that it would be fair to take such an approach. However, what is clear is that the document referred to by the decision maker was not translated in any event. Although there is no requirement in an asylum appeal to provide corroboration the lack of evidence from him as to what, if anything, he provided means that I can give very little weight to the untranslated document referred to but not produced.

24. Fourthly, I am required to consider S8 Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004. The appellant states in his screening interview that he went to France in July 2021 and was sleeping rough in the streets and was admitted to hospital for seven months and then came to the UK on 23 October 2022. He states that he claimed asylum in France but missed a lot of appointments but they said he needed to be treated from his TB before they would deal with his claim. He clarified in AIR2 that he did not get the opportunity to go through the asylum process due to his medical situation. He did not know what had happened to his claim but thought it had been rejected. This does not sit comfortably with his entry on his ‘continue asylum questionnaire’ where he was asked if he had claimed asylum in any country on his way to the UK and answered, ‘no – I was not given the chance or information Appeal number: PA/73624/2024 to claim asylum’. Whether or not he began the process of claiming asylum in France on his account he did not wait for the process to have been concluded and I do find that in those circumstances he has failed to take advantage of a reasonable opportunity to claim whilst in a safe country and I give this some weight.

25. In the refusal decision the respondent also states that the S8 applies because, having arrived by small boat on 23 October 2022, he did not claim asylum until 28 December 2022. This cannot be correct since the screening interview was held on 3 November 2022. The appellant states in the continue asylum claim questionnaire that he claimed asylum immediately upon arrival. The screening interview does not state when he in fact claimed asylum. I am not satisfied that there was any delay and therefore do not consider that this undermines his credibility.

26. Ultimately, it is for the Appellant to prove his Eritrean nationality. I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the appellant is Eritrean and therefore I am not satisfied that Eritrea is his country of nationality. I am therefore not satisfied that the Appellant would be persecuted for a Convention reason. Humanitarian Protection 27. As set out above, I did not find the appellant’s account of risk to be credible. I have re-assessed this applying the applicable lower standard of proof and conclude that his account is not reasonably likely to be true. Therefore, the appellant has not established substantial grounds for believing that he would face a real risk of suffering serious harm in his country of origin. Human Rights 28. No standalone Human Rights arguments have been advanced. I am not satisfied that he is at risk for a Convention reason or that he needs humanitarian protection. There are no grounds advanced beyond the protection claim to suggest that his return would nevertheless be a breach of Article 2 or 3 of the ECHR. No family or private life grounds have been advanced. There is nothing in the evidence before me to suggest that a return would be a breach of the ECHR and I am therefore not satisfied that a return would be in breach of the ECHR. Notice of Decision The appeal on asylum grounds is dismissed. The appeal of humanitarian protection grounds is dismissed. The appeal on human rights grounds is dismissed

ANONYMITY ORDER 29. Unless and until the Tribunal, the Upper Tribunal, or a Court orders otherwise, pursuant to rule 13(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014, the appellant is granted anonymity. No-one shall publish or reveal either directly or indirectly any information, including his name or Appeal number: PA/73624/2024 address, that is likely to lead members of the public to identify him. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court. To the Respondent – Fee Award I have dismissed the appeal and therefore there can be no fee award. Signature Signed E Hickey First-tier Tribunal Judge E Hickey Date 30 September 2026 7