DS v Secretary of State for the Home Department: asylum appeal dismissed over credibility findings

A Turkish national of Kurdish ethnicity has had his asylum appeal dismissed by the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) after a judge found significant and unexplained inconsistencies in his account of political persecution.

The case, DS v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (PA/50568/2025), was heard at Newport on 7 September 2026 before Judge McMahon, who proceeded in the appellant's absence. The appellant, referred to as DS under an anonymity order, had failed to attend without explanation or any application to adjourn.

The hearing had already been delayed once, following an earlier adjournment before Judge Bowen in June 2026 granted to allow the appellant to complete his evidence. Directions required this to be filed by 29 June 2026, but none was received. His solicitors, Montague Solicitors, subsequently notified the tribunal in August 2026 that they had ceased to act. The Home Office representative also disclosed that DS had applied for, and been granted, voluntary return to Turkey in August 2026, though there was no record of him having left the United Kingdom.

Judge McMahon was satisfied that reasonable steps had been taken to notify DS of the hearing and that it was in the interests of justice to proceed, given he had already had the opportunity to submit evidence at the earlier hearing.

The Home Office had accepted DS's identity, nationality and Kurdish ethnicity, along with the proposition that he would be unable to secure sufficient protection or relocate internally if his account were accepted. The dispute therefore centred on his credibility, his claimed involvement with the Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP), obstacles to reintegration in Turkey, and proportionality under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Applying the structured credibility approach set out in KB & AH (credibility-structured approach) Pakistan [2017] UKUT 491 (IAC), the judge identified several difficulties. DS's account of his HDP membership had shifted across his screening interview, witness statements and substantive interview, moving from describing himself as a member to stating he had not had time to join, before later suggesting he had not needed formal membership because his family already belonged to the party. His description of his level of involvement also varied considerably, from active participation in family political life to more limited claims of tree planting and handling placards, while the timeline for when his support began shifted between 2017, 2019 and 2022 in different accounts.

Although the judge accepted DS had been consistent in describing three detentions by the Turkish authorities, his account of the aftermath was found implausible, particularly his claim to have remained in Istanbul for two months and later left via an international airport despite an alleged pending arrest warrant. Limited weight was placed on undated photographic evidence, and the judge noted the absence of any arrest warrant, despite it being offered, or supporting testimony from family members still in contact with DS. His failure to attend for cross-examination and his voluntary return application were also treated as damaging to his credibility.

Referring to CPIN guidance on Kurds in Turkey and the HDP, together with IA and others (Risk, Guidelines, Separatist) [2003] UKIAT 34, the judge found no real risk of persecution or serious harm arising from ethnicity alone. The Article 8 claim was dismissed on similar grounds, given DS's limited UK residence, ongoing family ties in Turkey and precarious immigration status.

The appeal was dismissed on all grounds, with no fee award made.