The Upper Tribunal has said expert reports, especially those drawing on online material, will assist it if they meet four conditions; it also addressed experts based abroad.
Key facts
- Who: Appellants in asylum and human rights appeals, their representatives, and the experts they instruct.
- From: 9 July 2026 (date of judgment)
- Source: SU (Expert reports – format) Bangladesh [2026] UKUT 317 (IAC)
The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) issued its decision in SU (Expert reports – format) [2026] UKUT 317 (IAC) on 9 July 2026. The appeal was heard at Field House on 18 May 2026 before Upper Tribunal Judges Jackson and Keith. An anonymity order was made because the appeal relates to a claimed fear of persecution.
Background
The appellant, identified as SU, is a Bangladeshi national who brought asylum and human rights claims. The Secretary of State refused them in a decision dated 13 December 2023. In a decision promulgated on 18 November 2025, Upper Tribunal Judge Keith found an error of law in the First-tier Tribunal's decision dismissing his appeal. That decision was set aside with some findings of fact preserved, and the appeal was remade by the Upper Tribunal.
SU says he remains at risk on return to Bangladesh because of his political opinion and his affiliation with Jamaat-e-Islami and its student wing, despite the change of government. The Secretary of State's position is that, following the change of government, he is not at risk from the Awami League as claimed, and that internal relocation and sufficiency of protection are available.
The question and the guidance
The tribunal had to decide three outstanding issues: risk on return, sufficiency of protection and internal relocation. During the hearing it raised a number of issues about the expert report. The appellant's representative applied for an adjournment to seek further information from the expert, and the tribunal refused that application.
In its decision the tribunal gave guidance on expert evidence. It said expert evidence will assist the tribunal if it meets four conditions. This applies particularly to a report evaluating publicly available internet material of varying accuracy or reliability (so-called "Digital Open Source Information"). The conditions are:
- Independence. It is an independent product of the expert. Source material should not be copied in as if written by the author. Quoted material should be identified with quotation marks and a web link to the source, with any English translation provided, if available.
- Sources. It clearly identifies the sources relied on and, so far as possible, uses the primary source (such as a government press release or NGO report) rather than a news article describing it.
- The appellant's facts. Where asked to do so, it directly considers the particular facts of the appellant's case, applying the general conclusions to those facts and having due regard to any preserved findings of fact.
- Concerns raised. Where a party has raised issues about aspects of the report, the expert addresses them directly, bearing in mind the overriding duty to the tribunal.
The tribunal also said that where an expert is based outside the United Kingdom and does not have permission to attend to be cross-examined, a written process may be followed. Rigour in the format of the report may limit the questions needed of the expert.
What this means for appellants and their representatives
The tribunal said certain reports will help it: those that are the expert's own work, show their sources clearly and use primary sources where possible. Where an expert is asked to address the appellant's own circumstances, the tribunal expects the general conclusions to be applied to those facts.
If a party raises concerns about a report, the expert is expected to address them directly. Where an expert is based abroad and does not have permission to attend to be cross-examined, a written process may be followed.
If you have an appeal pending, get advice on your evidence well before any hearing or deadline.
Sources
- SU (Expert reports – format) Bangladesh [2026] UKUT 317 (IAC), Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), 9 July 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukut/iac/2026/317