Court of Appeal allows asylum appeal and sends case back over unclear tribunal reasoning

The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal by a mother and daughter whose asylum claim was refused, finding the First-tier Tribunal's reasoning unclear on key points, and has remitted the case for a fresh hearing.

In AM and another v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 159, handed down on 24 February 2026, the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal on both grounds. Lady Justice May gave the judgment, and Lord Justice Cobb and Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing agreed. An anonymity order applies because the case concerns a protection claim.

Background

The appellants are AM and her child, FM. They are Iraqi nationals of Kurdish ethnicity. AM's asylum claim was based on a fear of honour-based violence if they were returned to Iraq. They arrived in the UK on 30 April 2021 and claimed asylum.

The Secretary of State refused the claim on 24 July 2023. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed their appeal on 9 September 2024. The Upper Tribunal dismissed their further appeal on 13 March 2025.

The question

The Court considered whether the First-tier Tribunal judge had explained his decision adequately on the central issue. That issue was whether there was a reasonable degree of likelihood that AM and FM would face honour-based violence on return to Iraq.

The decision

The Court found an error of law in the First-tier Tribunal judge's reasoning. It allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the First-tier Tribunal to be reheard by a different tribunal.

The reasoning

Lady Justice May said the First-tier Tribunal must do three things:

• identify the principal important controversial issues;
• marshal the evidence on them;
• give intelligible reasons for accepting or rejecting the evidence that decides them.

She accepted that a judge may use conclusions on credibility about peripheral matters, such as identity documents, when assessing whether an account of risk is credible.

The difficulty was that the determination did not make clear what the judge had decided about the key elements of AM's account. He used conditional wording such as "should I accept" and "if I accept her account". He said her credibility was damaged in "some of the key aspects of her claim" and that "there may be aspects of her claim that are true", without saying which.

The Court described this as a break in the essential chain of reasoning. Having acknowledged that parts of the account might be true, the judge needed to explain why the risk of persecution had not been made out to the low standard of proof.

The Court noted that the judge's focus on overall credibility may have followed how counsel framed the issues. But it said the ultimate responsibility for identifying the issues lies with the judge.

On the second ground, the Court looked at the evidence of AM's husband, D, who gave first-hand evidence. It found the judge's references to that evidence sparse and equivocal, so it was impossible to tell which parts the judge rejected.

Sources

• AM & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 159, Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 24 February 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2026/159