MU & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department: tribunal rejects Turkish Kurdish brothers' asylum appeals over screening omissions

The First-tier Tribunal has dismissed the asylum appeals of two Turkish Kurdish brothers, finding that detentions, political activity and alleged PKK accusations, now central to their claims, were absent from their screening interviews.

In MU & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department (PA/69872/2025 and PA/70313/2025), Judge Boyes heard the appeals at Newport on 17 September 2026, with the appellants anonymised. Mr Dixon appeared for the appellants and R Dosso for the Home Office.

The Home Office accepted the appellants' identities, nationality, Kurdish ethnicity and support for the HDP and Yeşil Sol Parti. It also accepted that the feared treatment would amount to persecution for a Convention reason and that, if their accounts were credible, neither protection nor internal relocation would be available. Credibility was therefore the sole live issue, although another brother had been recognised as a refugee in the UK. The appellants claimed to have been detained twice and accused of supporting the PKK, and feared arrest, detention and torture.

The judge applied the two-stage test under section 32 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 from JCK (s.32 NABA 2022) Botswana [2024] UKUT 00100 and the structured credibility approach in KB & AH (credibility-structured approach) Pakistan [2017] UKUT 491 (IAC).

The judge accepted that screening interviews do not elicit every detail. However, both appellants had answered "no" when asked whether they had been detained, accused of an offence, or involved with or accused of involvement with a political organisation. Fear and reluctance to mention the PKK, given its terrorist designation in the UK, did not explain the complete absence of what were now said to be the principal reasons for leaving Turkey. Both had also said they came to the UK, rather than claiming elsewhere, because their brother had succeeded in claiming asylum here. Knowing that, the judge found it bizarre to withhold genuine matters, and concluded that the claims were still being developed.

The first appellant's account grew from discrimination as a Kurd at screening to detention, ill-treatment and political persecution at interview. Evidence on political involvement shifted between low-level sympathiser and activist, and on whether adverse attention stemmed from the appellants' own activities or a relative's. The chronology was unclear, and accounts of the detentions conflicted on dates, circumstances and whether the brothers were held together. Allegations of a beating and reporting requirements surfaced only under questioning, and the explanation that they had been forgotten was unpersuasive.

The relative's witness statement, said to be the origin of the difficulties, carried little or no weight because he declined cross-examination. Photographs of Newroz events in the UK showed attendance, but not meaningful activism. Family members remain in Turkey, some said to be involved with the HDP, without evidence of serious ill-treatment. Both appellants left through an international airport on their own passports, which the judge found hard to reconcile with claimed serious adverse interest, though not determinatively.

Under section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004, the appellants had travelled through safe countries without claiming. The judge accepted that family reunification was a significant factor but held that the failure to claim earlier could damage credibility.

In the judge's judgement, neither appellant had shown, even to the lower standard, that he had been detained, ill-treated or was of adverse interest to the Turkish authorities. Kurdish ethnicity alone did not create a real risk. The refugee, humanitarian protection and ECHR claims failed. No separate Article 8 claim was advanced, and language, cultural familiarity, work experience and family ties meant no obstacles to reintegration. The appeals were dismissed.