BA v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Afghan asylum appeal dismissed after tribunal proceeds in absence

An Afghan national's asylum appeal has been dismissed by the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) after a judge refused an adjournment application and found significant credibility issues with his account of Taliban threats against his family.

The case, BA v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (PA/73975/2024), was heard at The Priory Courts, Birmingham, on 4 September 2026 before Judge Le Grys. The appellant, granted anonymity and referred to as BA, did not attend the hearing despite being represented by Mrs Kaur of Twinwood Law Practice Ltd.

Mrs Kaur told the tribunal she had made repeated attempts to contact her client, including at least eight phone calls and two voicemails, without success. She confirmed BA had been sent notice of the hearing on 21 August 2026 and had also failed to attend a scheduled office meeting the previous month. With no explanation for his absence and no indication of his whereabouts, she applied for an adjournment, though she acknowledged she had little further to offer that might prevent a repeat of the situation.

The Home Office opposed the application, and Judge Le Grys agreed to proceed. The judge noted that the appellant had ample opportunity to make contact given the hearing did not begin until close to midday, and that his broader disengagement from his representatives suggested more than a short-term difficulty. With a full evidential bundle already served, including a witness statement and skeleton argument, and with BA continuing to be represented, the judge found no basis to conclude an adjournment would secure his attendance on a future occasion.

BA's claim centred on his father's employment with foreign businesses under Afghanistan's previous government, which he said the Taliban treated as collaboration, prompting threats against the family following the 2021 takeover. The Home Office accepted his nationality but disputed the remaining facts on credibility grounds, and it was agreed that if those facts were accepted, sufficient protection would not be available and internal relocation was not viable.

Assessing the evidence in the round, the judge identified several inconsistencies. BA's screening interview suggested he had personally been accused of working with coalition forces, whereas later accounts attributed the threats solely to his father, with BA facing risk only indirectly. The judge also noted tension between the claimed severity of the threats and the fact that several family members, including children, remained safely in Afghanistan, as well as a lack of any harm to BA himself during a two month period he remained in the country following the Taliban's return to power.

Limited weight was placed on a series of supporting documents, including an unsigned account from BA's father, an expired identity card bearing a different name, and a letter said to be from the Taliban that was not referenced in BA's own evidence. Applying Tanveer Ahmed [2002] UKIAT 00439, the judge found the reliability of each had not been established.

The judge further found BA's failure to claim asylum in the several safe countries he passed through, including Greece, Italy, Switzerland and France, damaging to his credibility under section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, noting his screening interview indicated a deliberate choice to reach the UK specifically.

The appeal was dismissed on asylum, humanitarian protection and human rights grounds, with the tribunal finding no very significant obstacles to BA's reintegration in Afghanistan. No fee award was made.