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

Hearing date: 10 March 2026

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 17 April 2026 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

Introduction

The appellant is a national of Vietnam who entered the UK on 10 June 2014. After having been encountered as an overstayer on 4 April 2018, he claimed asylum on 6 April 2018. On 27 June 2023 he was granted 12 months discretionary leave on the basis that he was a victim of trafficking. On 4 September 2023 the respondent refused the appellant's protection claim. The appellant's appeal against that decision to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (“FtTIAC”) was dismissed in a determination promulgated on 14 June 2024. The appellant made an unsuccessful appeal against the decision of the FtTIAC judge to the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum) Chamber (“UTIAC”) which was determined by a decision of Upper Tribunal Judge Hanson dated 10 December 2024. This is the appellant's appeal against that decision.

The Factual Framework

The appellant is a Catholic and whilst in Vietnam he attended a demonstration in 2014 against the Chinese government who had at that time occupied the Spratly and Paracel Archipelago and seized land belonging to the Catholic church. The appellant's attendance at the demonstration was undisputed by the respondent, but the respondent did not accept that the appellant had experienced the difficulties which he claimed in his evidence as a consequence of his attendance. The appellant's account of his treatment at the demonstration is recounted in the following paragraphs of the determination of the FtTIAC judge:

“14. The Appellant's account is relatively straight forward. He claims that

“At that demonstration, the police arrested and physically attacked many people. Three people in my group was arrested, including me and my 2 friends. We were arrested and put on a vehicle and they tortured us and they asked us who the leader was and they took my fingerprints, and they told me that the local authorities put my name on its blacklist. And they let me know that they will arrest and detain me” (Q45 of the AIR).””

The FtTIAC Judge also took account of other details of the appellant's asylum interview which were recorded as follows:

“21. I have carefully considered the AIR. In relation to the arrest, the Appellant provided further detail:

“They arrested and put many people on the vehicle, among them was me and my 2 friends and they travelled to a location that I don't know, but along the journey they interrogated us. At the location of the demonstration they beat me, they punched me on my face and slapped me as well. And they asked the three of us about the one who acted as a leader of the demonstration. And I said that it was me. And they took my fingerprints and they told me that my name was on the blacklist of the local authorities where I live” (Q57 of the AIR).

22. The Appellant also told the officer that he had told them he was the leader of their group to protect his friends (Qs 58 & 59). In my judgement, the answers have the ring of truth. The Appellant added that he had been officially charged with an offence. At the hearing he told me that they had charged him with attending an illegal demonstration.

23. Further, the Appellant said that they returned to their home area and the ‘next day’ the police came to his house and said, they will arrest him in the near future (Qs86–69). However, at the hearing the Appellant told me that the local authorities had told him that they will arrest him on the same day that he returned to his home area and the next day they just went to his house to watch him. I note that the Appellant also explained during his interview that he had not done anything else as they sent someone to watch him (Q72 of the AIR).”

The appellant was granted a business visa by the respondent on 13 May 2014 valid until 23 November 2014. As set out above, he arrived in the UK on 10 June 2014. The appellant's account was that when he arrived in the UK he was given a passport and told to follow those who were facilitating his entrance to the UK. Once he had passed through the gate successfully the passport was taken back off him.

The parties provided the FtTIAC judge with information about the current situation in Vietnam which was said to be pertinent to the circumstances of the appellant and provide insight into the risks which he might face on return. The FtTIAC judge set out that evidence in the following paragraphs:

“25. Finally, both advocates relied on the Country Policy Information Note Vietnam: Opposition to the State, version 4.0, August 2023. In particular, I note

3.2.1 Those who openly criticise, or are perceived critics of, the government are likely to attract adverse attention from the authorities. Whether a person is likely to be at risk of persecution and/or serious harm will depend upon their level of involvement, their activities, the nature of any criticism, the topics they have been critical about, and any previous adverse interest.

3.2.2 Whilst there is some tolerance for protests, those who do so on political or sensitive subjects may be subject to intimidation by police and may be arrested and subsequently released. However, in general, this is not sufficiently serious by its nature and/or repetition to amount to persecution.

“… Those who take part in protests on sensitive subjects such as environmental issues, relations with China, human rights or areas deemed to be in opposition to the state, or during sensitive periods may attract the attention of the authorities. This can include harassment, assaults by police or plain clothes individuals believed to be associated with the authorities, house arrest, detention and the confiscation of travel documents (paragraph 3.2.7).

26. Further, diplomatic sources told the UK Home Office: ‘they [protestors] can be subject to house arrest, they may be threatened, police may just come in and beat them up. They may be able to just make their protest. There is a whole variety of actions that may occur depending on the timing and sensitivities involved” (paragraph 10.5.1).

27. The Appellant also relied on a report by the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and Vietnam Committee on Human Rights (VCHR), A history of violence: Repression of the right to freedom of assembly in Vietnam, dated 20 June 2023. In particular, the report noted “The right to freedom of peaceful assembly has been systematically repressed in Vietnam. This report provides the most comprehensive account to date of more than three decades of protests movements in Vietnam and the patterns of repression they have faced. These have included unnecessary and/or disproportionate use of force, arrest, detention, prosecution, and other forms of attacks and harassment against protest leaders, participants, and sympathizers” (55).”

Before the FtTIAC judge the respondent attacked the credibility of the appellant and in particular relied upon the failure of the appellant to mention at his screening interview that he had been arrested. It was also pointed out that the appellant had given an inconsistent explanation for why his arrest had been omitted from his initial explanation of the circumstances leading to him fleeing Vietnam. Further, the respondent relied upon section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 given the failure of the appellant to claim asylum until he was arrested in April 2018.

The conclusions reached by the FtTIAC judge in relation to the appellant's credibility and the findings of fact to be made in the case were set out in the following paragraphs:

“28. I am very troubled by the Appellant's failure to mention at the earliest opportunity that he had been arrested and charged. Nevertheless, on the totality of the evidence, and applying the lower standard of proof, I am satisfied that the Appellant has given a credible account of his experiences in Vietnam.

29. Plainly an asylum seeker is expected to tell the truth (see for example, YL (rely on SEF) China 2004 UKIAT 00145). However, having had regard to the Appellant's circumstances at that time I am satisfied that his failure to mention his arrest at the screening interview does not significantly undermine his claim. The Appellant had been held against his will for about 4 years and had only recently been able to escape from the traffickers. He had also been arrested a few days earlier and held in a detention centre. Further he was unrepresented. The Appellant's claim that he was scared is plausible and may explain why he did not say that he had been arrested in Vietnam.

30. In any event, the omission does not undermine the favourable impression I gained from the Appellant's responses recorded in the AIR. He provided a generally coherent and sufficiently detailed account of his arrest. Although the Appellant's account as to when and where the local authorities warned him is inconsistent, I note that the Appellant did not seek to bolster his account. The Appellant could easily have maintained that they also came round the next day and warned him, but instead he told me that they just watched him. It is also to the Appellant's credit that he...