IK v Home Secretary: Tribunal dismisses asylum appeal and flags solicitors' conduct

The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) has dismissed an asylum appeal brought by a Pakistani national, finding his account of political persecution not credible, while separately raising concerns about the conduct of his legal representatives and indicating that a referral to the regulator may follow.

The appellant, referred to as IK under an anonymity order, claimed that his father was a prominent member of the Awami National Party in Dubai and had been attacked in Pakistan ahead of the 2018 election, and that he himself had become involved with the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement in 2019. He said he was shot at near his home in April and May 2020 because of his political activity, before travelling to the UK on a student visa in October 2020 and claiming asylum that December. The Secretary of State refused the claim in November 2023.

Judge Seelhoff, sitting at Hatton Cross, set out a lengthy procedural history before turning to the substance of the appeal. The appellant's representatives, Times PBS, came on record shortly before the case was first listed and successfully sought an adjournment. A further hearing in November 2025 was adjourned after the firm uploaded a bundle only on the morning of the hearing, in breach of the Practice Direction requiring evidence five days in advance. No further evidence was filed by the following deadline, and a supplementary witness statement was ultimately lodged on 11 August 2026, days before the substantive hearing, again outside the required timeframe. The judge noted that Times PBS, and specifically the solicitor with conduct of the matter, had previously been criticised for similar failings in the reported decision Dawrani (Judicial discretion, late evidence, sanction) [2026] UKUT 00151 (IAC), and indicated the tribunal would consider a referral to the regulator.

At the hearing itself, the appellant attended without representation, having been unable to fund his solicitors' attendance, and the tribunal proceeded to admit his late statement and hear his evidence directly.

On the substance, the judge identified a series of inconsistencies across the appellant's asylum interview, witness statements and supporting documents, including conflicting dates for when he joined the PTM, discrepancies between an FIR and an accompanying police statement, an unexplained late assertion that he had been shot at on two occasions rather than one, and translation issues that the judge treated with caution given the appellant's own fluent English. Limited and largely dormant social media activity, the absence of corroborating evidence for an alleged 2022 attack on the family home, and the lack of any medical evidence for claimed mental health difficulties further undermined the account. Applying the lower standard of proof, the judge did not accept that the appellant's father held the political role claimed or that the appellant had been a genuine PTM activist.

In the alternative, even taking the claim at its highest, the judge found no evidence linking the alleged attacks to the state, and preferred current country guidance indicating that sufficient protection and internal relocation would be available in any event. A private life claim under paragraph 276ADE and Article 8 also failed, given the limited weight attributable to long residence under section 117B of the 2002 Act and the absence of significant obstacles to reintegration. The appeal was dismissed on all grounds, with no fee award available given the outcome.