MH (Bangladesh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In asylum claims based on sur place political activity, tribunals must not impose an unrealistic evidential burden concerning covert surveillance by a foreign state. They must use common sense and may take judicial notice that demonstrations can be photographed and filmed, and that publicly accessible websites and social-media posts can readily be monitored electronically. Evidence of technical surveillance capabilities beyond those general propositions ordinarily requires expert evidence. The assessment of state capacity cannot be separated from whether the claimant is already of interest, or whether the activities are likely to attract such interest. The claimant should provide evidence placing media reports and online activity in context, including the aims and activities of any organisation relied upon. A tribunal may nevertheless conclude that low-level activity is insufficient to create a real risk on return.

The appellant, a Bangladeshi national and BNP supporter, entered the United Kingdom in 2017 and claimed asylum. His original account of political activity and persecution in Bangladesh was rejected by the First-tier Tribunal in 2019. Following further representations, he relied on alleged political appointments, demonstrations, videos, Facebook posts, newspaper reports and threats as fresh sur place evidence. The respondent refused the fresh claim under section 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal in September 2023. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal in June 2024, including a challenge based on the approach to surveillance and monitoring identified in YB (Eritrea). The Court of Appeal considered whether the tribunals had imposed an unrealistic evidential burden or failed to assess the online threats, newspaper articles and broadcasts properly.

1. Appeal dismissed. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision, upheld by the Upper Tribunal, was not vitiated by legal error.
2. In claims based on sur place activity, an applicant cannot ordinarily be expected to produce direct evidence of covert surveillance or monitoring by a foreign state. Tribunals must use common sense. They may take judicial notice that people at demonstrations can be photographed or filmed and that publicly accessible websites and social-media postings can readily be monitored electronically.
3. That judicial notice does not extend to detailed conclusions about technical monitoring capabilities. Such matters ordinarily require expert evidence, because capabilities differ between states and change over time. The assessment of capacity must also be considered alongside whether the claimant is already of interest to the regime and whether the activity is likely to make the claimant of interest.
4. The claimant should provide evidence placing news coverage, social-media posts and similar material into context. In the present case, the absence of evidence about the aims and activities of Zia Parishad was material, and an article naming the appellant did not by itself establish the significance of the activity or the risk on return.
5. Read in context, the First-tier Tribunal’s statement that there was no evidence that the Bangladeshi High Commission filmed, photographed or monitored those demonstrating against the regime did not impose an unrealistic evidential burden. The tribunal had assessed the appellant’s limited level of activity, distinguished bulk monitoring from targeted searches, and was entitled to find that the activity was unlikely to place him at risk. The challenge to the videos, threats and newspaper articles therefore failed, and ground 4 added nothing to ground 1.

It was unnecessary to consider the respondent’s late reliance on a December 2024 Political CPIN or the appellant’s application to adduce expert evidence.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): appeal dismissed on 9 June 2025.
• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): Upper Tribunal Judge Smith and Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Farrelly dismissed the appeal on 19 June 2024.
• First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): First-tier Tribunal Judge Cary dismissed the appeal on 25 September 2023 against the respondent’s refusal dated 21 July 2022 of the fresh asylum claim.
• First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): First-tier Tribunal Judge Bulpitt dismissed the original appeal on 24 January 2019; permission to appeal was refused by the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal.