QJ v Secretary of State for the Home Department: asylum appeal dismissed over credibility concerns

The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) has dismissed an asylum appeal brought by a Pakistani national identified only as QJ, subject to an anonymity order, finding that inconsistencies in his evidence and his repeated failure to attend hearings undermined the credibility of his claim to be a gay man at risk of persecution on return to Pakistan.

The decision, handed down by First-tier Tribunal Judge Mulready following a hearing at Taylor House, marks the second time the appeal has come before the First-tier Tribunal. An earlier decision allowing the appeal, promulgated in January 2023, was overturned by the Upper Tribunal and remitted for a fresh hearing with no findings preserved.

QJ arrived in the United Kingdom in 2014 on a student visa and made several unsuccessful applications to regularise his immigration status before claiming asylum in March 2019 on the basis of his sexual orientation. He argued that disclosing his sexuality to his father had led to threats of violence, and that he consequently faced a well-founded fear of persecution should he return.

The judgement records a lengthy history of non-engagement with the appeals process. QJ failed to attend a remote hearing in January 2023 due to reported illness, did not attend the subsequent Upper Tribunal hearing, and missed a case management review and a substantive hearing in 2025 and 2026 respectively, on each occasion failing to submit directed evidence. On the day of the most recent hearing, QJ informed the Tribunal by email that he was suffering from back pain, sciatica and fever, but did not provide medical evidence or respond to repeated invitations to join the hearing remotely.

Having considered this history, Judge Mulready concluded it was in the interests of justice to proceed in QJ's absence, noting that an adjournment was unlikely to result in different engagement given the pattern of non-compliance.

On the substantive claim, the judgement found QJ's general account of realising his sexuality as a teenager and forming relationships in the UK to be plausible in principle, but concluded the supporting evidence fell short of establishing the claim to the required standard. Screenshots said to be messages between QJ and his father were found to contain unexplained inconsistencies, including his father's name being saved differently across messages and the images appearing to originate from different devices. The Tribunal also identified a discrepancy between QJ's asylum interview, in which he did not cite pressure to marry as a reason for disclosing his sexuality to his father, and the text messages later produced, which suggested marriage pressure had prompted the conversation.

Three character letters submitted in support were found not to comply with the Immigration and Asylum Chamber's Practice Direction, lacking statements of truth, and their authors did not attend either hearing to have their evidence tested.

Judge Mulready determined that QJ had, on at least two occasions, avoided opportunities to give oral evidence and be cross-examined, a factor taken into account when weighing his account overall. The Tribunal was not persuaded that delay in claiming asylum damaged his credibility, but concluded that, taken together, the inconsistencies and gaps in the evidence meant there was no reasonable likelihood QJ was gay. All grounds of appeal, including humanitarian protection and Article 8 arguments, were dismissed accordingly, and no fee award was made.