QY (Vietnam) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

An appellate tribunal must respect the First-tier Tribunal’s fact-finding role and must not recast disagreement about facts as an error of law. However, a tribunal must give reasons sufficient to show how it reached its conclusions. The lower standard of proof in asylum and protection claims does not remove that requirement. Where serious credibility concerns have been identified, a finding that an account remains plausible must explain why those concerns have been overcome, particularly where the account depends on the claimant’s evidence and relevant evidence indicates available legal protection or due process. It remains legally possible to accept an account despite serious concerns, provided the reasoning is clear. The appeal was dismissed because the First-tier Tribunal had not adequately reconciled its adverse credibility findings with its overall conclusion.

The appellant, a Vietnamese national, claimed asylum, humanitarian protection and human-rights protection from deportation. He alleged persecution and serious harm arising from evasion of military service and demands for bribes by military officials.

The First-tier Tribunal accepted the appellant’s account, found that he was not a danger to the community and found a real risk of serious harm and degrading treatment on return. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the challenge concerning danger to the community but found material errors in the credibility reasoning, set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision and remitted the case without preserving findings of fact.

The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the Upper Tribunal had substituted disagreement about the facts for an error of law. The central issue was whether the First-tier Tribunal’s reasons were legally adequate.

1. Disposition. By a majority, Dingemans LJ and Arnold LJ, the appeal was dismissed. The Upper Tribunal had been entitled to set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision and the matter was to return to the First-tier Tribunal for a new decision. Holroyde LJ dissented.
2. The applicable approach to asylum and protection claims was the lower standard of proof described in Karanakaran v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] 3 All ER 449 and MAH (Egypt) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 216. That approach required assessment of the evidence in its country context and with anxious scrutiny. It did not dispense with the need for adequate reasons.
3. The First-tier Tribunal had identified the absence of evidence of attempts to obtain the 2010 recruitment order and the absence of evidence from family members as damaging to credibility. It then described the case as raising serious credibility concerns, but concluded that the account was plausible and internally consistent without explaining how those concerns had been overcome. The Secretary of State was entitled to reasons sufficient to show the basis of the decision. The deficiency was a material inadequacy of reasoning, not merely a different view of the facts, applying Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 5.
4. The First-tier Tribunal had also failed to confront the evidence that protection and due process were available in Vietnam. It did not explain why the appellant would pay bribes and submit to unlawful demands rather than seek legal redress. This was a further manifestation of the central inadequacy in its reasons.
5. The majority confirmed that a tribunal may, in an appropriate case, find an account plausible despite serious credibility concerns and allow a protection appeal. It must explain that conclusion clearly and fairly. Holroyde LJ considered that the Upper Tribunal had applied impermissible narrow textual analysis, failed to show appropriate restraint and converted disagreement with a holistic credibility assessment into an error of law. He would have allowed the appeal and restored the First-tier Tribunal’s decision.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2025] EWCA Civ 607, the majority dismissed the appeal and upheld the remittal for a fresh decision.
• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): In December 2023, set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision, preserved no findings of fact and remitted the matter for redetermination.
• First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): By a decision dated 4 August 2023, accepted the appellant’s credibility on the material events and found a real risk of serious harm and degrading treatment on return.