AM v Secretary of State

The appellant is a citizen of Tunisia. He is thirty five years of age.

The appellant entered the United Kingdom (UK) as a visitor in December 2017. He claimed asylum on 18 December 2023.

The appellant’s evidence is that he came to the United Kingdom (UK) with the intention of working. To that end he borrowed money from smugglers so that they would organise a work visa for him. In fact they obtained a visit visa and the appellant was therefore unable to work as planned in the UK. He is therefore afraid to return to Tunisia because he will be at risk from the smugglers. His brother was mistaken for the appellant and attacked.

In a decision dated 17 July 2025 the respondent refused the appellant’s claim. She accepts that the appellant has borrowed money as claimed but not that he would be at risk on return because of this or that his brother has been attacked. Further, even if the appellant would be at risk from the smugglers he could access state protection and internally relocate.

The appellant represented himself. The appellant was concerned that the interpreter was not Tunisian but she confirmed that she could speak with him. Further, the appellant stated that he wanted to go ahead in English and would only use the interpreter if required. I was satisfied that the appellant was able to communicate throughout the appeal hearing and properly represent himself.

The appellant confirmed that he was no longer in a relationship with the mother of his daughter. Also that he is currently unable to have contact with his daughter due to a restraining order that is in place following his conviction for battery on 28 January 2026.

It was agreed that the relevant documents were to be found in the stitched bundle. The appellant confirmed that the only reason that he is afraid to return to Tunisia is because of the smugglers. The appellant also wants to remain in the UK so that he can re-establish contact with his daughter. The appellant confirmed that he understood the issues that were before me.

I shall set out the evidence and submissions only as is necessary to give reasons for my findings. The hearing was recorded.

The respondent is not satisfied that the appellant’s claim engages a Convention Reason. The appellant did not make any submissions on this issue. As he is self-representing I have considered the issue but am not persuaded that a person who takes a loan from people smugglers is a person who can be said to be a member of a particular social group. The appellant cannot therefore satisfy the conditions for a grant of refugee status.

I will therefore consider whether he is eligible for Humanitarian Protection. In making this assessment I remind myself that the burden of proof rests on the appellant and the standard of proof is the lower standard.

The respondent accepts that the appellant borrowed money as claimed. Indeed I find that the appellant was open about his intentions in coming to the UK; to work. I also accept that he has been unable to repay the money that he has borrowed because he was issued with a visit visa and not a work visa as he had anticipated.

However, I am not persuaded, even to the lower standard, that the appellant will be at risk from the smugglers. This is because the appellant’s evidence is that his family’s property is next door to the smugglers (q.32 of the appellant’s substantive asylum interview “AIR”) and yet the only action that the appellant claims they have taken (despite him owing £45,000) was in 2023 against his brother. I do not find that this is credible, and nor do I find it credible that the smugglers mistook the appellant’s brother for him. I also find that the appellant’s evidence in his AIR is that he is in regular contact with his family and they have not reported any other incidents.

Further, I find that the appellant has not provided any reliable evidence that the smugglers hold any political influence or influence over the authorities in Tunisia. I am therefore satisfied that if the appellant were to encounter any problems from the smugglers in Tunisia he could access sufficient state protection. I am also satisfied that even if the appellant were to encounter any problems locally he could move to a different area. Indeed when the appellant was asked this question in his AIR (q.50) I find that he did not provide any good reason as to why he could not internally relocate but referred only to work opportunities generally in Tunisia. There is however no evidence before me as to why the appellant would not be able to support himself on return. He would also have the support of his family.

I also find that the substantial delay in claiming asylum in the UK is to the detriment of the appellant’s credibility.

I am not therefore satisfied that the appellant would face a real risk of serious harm on return to Tunisia. He is not entitled to Humanitarian Protection and his removal is not in breach of Article 3 ECHR.

I am satisfied that the appellant has family to whom he can return in Tunisia and with whom he remains in contact. He has not provided any evidence as to why he would be unable to gain employment on return and although he speaks excellent English he does not claim to have lost social, cultural or linguistic ties to Tunisia where he has lived for the majority of his life. I am not therefore persuaded that the appellant would face very significant obstacles to integration on return to Tunisia.

I am not satisfied that the appellant has an existing family life in the UK. He has not seen his ex-partner or daughter since January 2026 and currently is not legally entitled to do so. I am aware that the appellant wants to remain in the UK in the hope of establishing a relationship with his daughter but at this stage he has taken no action to do so, and given his daughter’s extremely young age at the date of separation it cannot be said that her best interests require his ongoing presence in the UK. For these reasons I am not therefore persuaded that the decision to remove the appellant would interfere with any family life or if it would, would be disproportionate.

The appellant provided no evidence about the impact to his private life if removed to Tunisia.

I find that his removal is not in breach of Article 8 ECHR.

The appeal is refused.

The appellant is not entitled to Refugee Status.

He is not entitled to Humanitarian Protection.

His removal would not be in breach of Articles 3 and 8 ECHR.