Auron Hoxha & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department

The party relying on a document must establish its reliability. The judge assesses it in the context of all the evidence, distinguishing its form from the truth of its contents. The Secretary of State has no general duty to verify documents, and a failure to investigate creates no presumption in the appellant’s favour. These principles apply in protection and non-protection appeals, and to documents filed during any stage of proceedings. Late evidence requires permission and proper service; judges may exclude it, assess its weight or adjourn. Where credibility is in issue, an oral hearing will often be appropriate. The principled approach in Tanveer Ahmed [2002] UKIAT 00439 remains applicable in the face of increasingly sophisticated document manipulation, including by AI.

Five linked immigration appeals concerned applications under the EU Settlement Scheme or for an EUSS Family Permit. The applicants claimed to be spouses or partners of EEA nationals. The First-tier Tribunal had dismissed some appeals and allowed another; the Secretary of State challenged the decision allowing Zahid Mehmood’s appeal. The Upper Tribunal also considered whether evidence filed late or not served on the Secretary of State could properly be relied on, whether appeals raising documentary credibility issues should proceed on the papers, and how judges should assess documents suspected of being false or manipulated. In Atif Mehmood’s appeal, the claimed marriage was also material to eligibility under the applicable immigration route.

1. Disposal. On remaking, all five immigration appeals were dismissed. The First-tier Tribunal decisions in Zahid Mehmood, Atif Mehmood, and Nagina Kousar and her son were set aside. The earlier First-tier Tribunal decision in Auron Hoxha’s appeal had also been set aside, and the Upper Tribunal dismissed that appeal on remaking. The Secretary of State’s appeal in Zahid Mehmood succeeded.
2. Reliability of documents. The Tribunal reaffirmed the approach in Tanveer Ahmed [2002] UKIAT 00439: the party relying on a document must show that it is reliable, and the judge must assess it in the round. A document may be genuine in form but false in content, or the reverse. The central issue is ordinarily the weight it deserves, not whether it must be labelled forged. If the Secretary of State makes a specific allegation of forgery on a proper evidential basis, the Secretary of State bears the burden of proving it on the balance of probabilities. There is no general duty to verify documents, and failure to investigate does not create a presumption for the appellant.
3. Scope and technology. The Tanveer Ahmed approach applies in non-protection and human-rights appeals, and to documents produced at any stage, including interim applications and bail hearings. Suspected AI use, by itself, does not indicate fraud. Judges should nevertheless be alert to documents generated or materially altered by digital tools.
4. Late and unserved evidence. A party relying on evidence filed contrary to directions should apply for permission and establish timely service on the other party. Inclusion in a hearing bundle or upload to MyHMCTS does not establish service or permission. The judge may refuse admission, admit the evidence and assess its weight, or adjourn. Where evidence is uploaded after the Secretary of State’s review and the judge cannot be satisfied it was served, taking it into account may be procedurally unfair. The principles in Maleci [2024] UKUT 00028 (IAC) and Dawrani [2026] UKUT 00151 (IAC) may lead to the evidence being excluded and disregarded.
5. Hearings and adjournments. Where credibility or document reliability is in issue, an appeal should ordinarily be heard orally, with cross-examination where useful. A judge considering an adverse inference from the choice of a paper hearing must raise the concern and give the parties a fair opportunity to address it. Under Nwaigwe [2014] UKUT 00418 (IAC), the adjournment question is whether refusal would deprive a party of a fair hearing in all the circumstances. The identified factors include the nature and evidential support for the application, its timing, the explanation, the importance of the evidence, compliance with directions and prior opportunities to prepare. SH (Afghanistan) [2011] EWCA Civ 1284 arose in the distinct fast-track context and does not provide a general answer for ordinary First-tier Tribunal cases.
6. Other guidance. Document Verification Reports and Enrichment Reports are evidence, not determinative findings; the judge assesses them with any supporting material and gives the appellant an opportunity to answer an allegation of fraud. A representative appearing professionally before the Tribunal must carry out appropriate checks to confirm the client’s identity and instructions. Abuse of the Tribunal’s process is a powerful factor when deciding whether to consent to withdrawal.

1. Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) The Tribunal set aside the First-tier Tribunal decisions in the Zahid Mehmood, Atif Mehmood, and Nagina Kousar appeals, then remade the decisions and dismissed the immigration appeals. The First-tier Tribunal decision in Auron Hoxha’s appeal had been set aside in an earlier Upper Tribunal decision; the appeal was dismissed on remaking. The Secretary of State’s appeal concerning Zahid Mehmood was allowed.
2. First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) The First-tier Tribunal had dismissed the appeals of Hoxha, Atif Mehmood, Kousar and her son, and allowed Zahid Mehmood’s appeal. The relevant decisions were set aside as stated above.