A Turkish national of Kurdish ethnicity has had his protection appeal dismissed on all grounds by the First-tier Tribunal.
The appellant, who claimed he had been detained, abducted, and pressured to inform on the People’s Democratic Party, was found to have a low-level profile that carries no real risk. The tribunal, heard at Hatton Cross, dismissed the appeal on asylum, humanitarian protection, and human rights grounds.
Judge Watson made the decision, citing cumulative inconsistencies in the appellant’s account as material and unresolved. The appellant, now 21, represented himself in the hearing.
An anonymity order was made to protect his identity, as well as that of his family members and friends. The judge made a vulnerable witness direction, given the appellant’s age at the time of the alleged events and the Joint Presidential Guidance Note 2010 No 2.
Related: Court Finds Concealed Director Liable for Undervalued Transactions
This direction allowed for questions to be put singly and breaks to be offered to help the appellant give his best evidence. The appellant’s witness statement was prepared and translated, but the judge could not verify whether the translation was done by an interpreter or an online tool.
The court-appointed interpreter read the statement to the appellant, who made one amendment before adopting it. The judge applied the two-stage test under section 32 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and the structured credibility approach.
While a Convention reason was engaged, the appellant’s account did not survive scrutiny due to inconsistencies and lack of evidence. The screening interview attributed the fear of return to ethnic and religious discrimination, but the political claim emerged eight months later.
The appellant’s evidence that masked men who held him were state agents was based on inference, and he obtained a replacement passport while supposedly in hiding. The judge held that the appellant’s profile as a low-level supporter of the HDP, with no membership, senior role, online activity, or perceived PKK link, fell outside the indicators of risk.
Related: How Much Money People Annually Spend on Engagement Rings in the UK
The country policy note and relevant case law confirmed that a returns and record-keeping system does not create risk without more. The Article 8 claim, based on private life established during a precarious period, attracted little weight under section 117B.
The appellant claimed to have paid £17,000 from his own savings for his journey, but his evidence on this point was found to be evasive.
The judge’s decision was based on a thorough analysis of the available evidence, and the appellant’s appeal was dismissed on all grounds.
