Factual and Procedural Background
The Respondent, a national of Bangladesh born in 1989, lawfully entered the United Kingdom in 2016 as the spouse of a British citizen and was granted leave to remain until October 2021. In November 2020, he pleaded guilty to rape and was sentenced to six years' imprisonment. Subsequently, the Secretary of State notified the Respondent of an intention to issue a deportation order as a foreign criminal. The Respondent made protection and human rights claims, which were refused by the Secretary of State in October 2023, and a deportation order was made.
The Respondent appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) under section 82(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The FTT dismissed the appeal against refusal of protection but allowed the human rights claim, finding a real risk of serious ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if returned to Bangladesh.
The Secretary of State appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT), which dismissed the appeal in February 2024. The Secretary of State then appealed to this court with permission granted by Andrews LJ.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the FTT erred in its approach to the Article 3 claim based on the Respondent’s political activities in Bangladesh.
- Whether the FTT erred in its assessment of evidence concerning the Respondent’s mental health issues.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments (Secretary of State)
- The FTT’s approach to the Article 3 claim was legally flawed, particularly for failing to properly consider the availability of state protection and the possibility of internal relocation.
- The FTT erred in relation to the evidence concerning the Respondent’s mental health.
- The FTT’s conclusion that the Respondent faced a real risk of ill-treatment was not open on the facts.
Respondent's Arguments
- The focus of the argument at the FTT had not been on relocation or sufficiency of protection, and the Respondent maintained the risk of ill-treatment if returned.
- The updated Country Policy and Information Note (CPIN) did not provide an unequivocal picture of risk, noting only that it was "unlikely" BNP members would face persecution or serious harm.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court focused primarily on the FTT’s decision regarding the Article 3 claim. The FTT had found the Respondent credible in his account of political activity with the Bangladesh National Party (BNP), attacks by Awami League supporters during a 2019 visit to Bangladesh, and the resulting risk of serious ill-treatment if returned. The FTT concluded that state protection and internal relocation were not viable options.
The court found the FTT’s reasoning flawed, particularly in paragraph 48 of the FTT’s decision. There was no evidence that the Respondent was of interest to state authorities, and the CPIN indicated low-level opposition members generally did not face persecution by the state. The FTT failed to properly consider the availability of state protection and the possibility of internal relocation, which are well-established legal principles in assessing Article 3 claims involving non-state actor risks.
The court noted the Respondent had not been subject to adverse state action on prior visits and that the risk arose from local Awami League supporters in the Respondent’s home area. The court reasoned that even if local police protection was inadequate, relocation to another area where the Respondent was not known (such as Dhaka) could mitigate the risk. The FTT’s conclusion that protection and relocation were unavailable was a non sequitur unsupported by evidence.
Regarding the mental health evidence and the second ground of appeal, the court did not find it necessary to consider these further due to the fundamental error identified in the first ground.
The court also considered a significant change in circumstances after the FTT and UT decisions: the overthrow of the Awami League government and the issuance of a new CPIN in December 2024. The updated CPIN stated that leaders, members, and supporters of major political groups, including the BNP, were unlikely to face persecution or serious harm from state or non-state actors, and that effective state protection and internal relocation were generally available.
The court accepted the Appellant’s submission that the changed political landscape eliminated any real risk of serious harm to the Respondent if returned to Bangladesh. The Respondent’s argument that the CPIN was equivocal was rejected as unpersuasive given the context of the government change.
Holding and Implications
The court QUASHED the decisions of both the FTT and the UT.
Exercising its jurisdiction under section 14(2)(b)(ii) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, the court DISMISSED the Respondent’s human rights appeal.
The direct effect is that the deportation order against the Respondent is upheld, with no real risk of ill-treatment found on return to Bangladesh given the changed political circumstances. No new legal precedent was established by this decision.