Accurate
Country-specific legal content
Drafted with legal expertise for each jurisdiction, far more thorough than AI-generated drafts that copy generic clauses across borders.
Immigration & AsylumUnited Kingdom
Free Asylum Appeal Notice Template (FTT IAC)
An Asylum Appeal is the United Kingdom statutory route to challenge a Home Office refusal of protection — asylum under the Refugee Convention 1951, humanitarian protection under the Qualification Directive (retained), or European Convention on Human Rights Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 8 (family / private life). Appeals are lodged on Form ASYL-1 (Notice of Appeal) to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (NIAA 2002) and the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014. The NIAA 2002 framework remains in force post-Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 (BSAI 2025). Our free UK template builds a structured Notice — appellant identification, Home Office decision being appealed, Convention reason and country of origin, appeal grounds — with four Expert clauses on HJ (Iran), country guidance and CPIN engagement, the Karanakaran standard of proof with Devaseelan starting-point, and the Januzi / AH (Sudan) internal-relocation triple test.
Free to useInstant PDFNo account required
PDF (free) + editable Word (.docx) with Expert
Asylum Appeal — First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
ASYL-1 Notice Of Appeal · 9 June 2026
NOTICE OF APPEAL — ASYLUM AND HUMAN RIGHTS
HO Ref: K1234567/2025 | Nationality: Iran
To the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber),
I, Behzad Karimi (DOB 18 April 1992), give notice of appeal under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 against the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department dated 22 May 2026 and served on 26 May 2026. The decision is a Refusal of protection claim (asylum). This appeal is brought within the time framework set by the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014 and is supported by the grounds set out below.
I, Behzad Karimi (DOB 18 April 1992), give notice of appeal under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 against the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department dated 22 May 2026 and served on 26 May 2026. The decision is a Refusal of protection claim (asylum). This appeal is brought within the time framework set by the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014 and is supported by the grounds set out below.
1.
APPELLANT IDENTIFICATION
Full name: Behzad Karimi
Other names used: Behzad Karimi-Tehrani
Date of birth: 18 April 1992
Nationality: Iran
Address for service: c/o Refugee Action, 4 Wilkinson Street, Sheffield S10 2GJ
Telephone: 07700 904412
Email: b.karimi@email.co.uk
Immigration status: On reporting conditions
Other names used: Behzad Karimi-Tehrani
Date of birth: 18 April 1992
Nationality: Iran
Address for service: c/o Refugee Action, 4 Wilkinson Street, Sheffield S10 2GJ
Telephone: 07700 904412
Email: b.karimi@email.co.uk
Immigration status: On reporting conditions
2.
HOME OFFICE DECISION BEING APPEALED
Home Office reference: K1234567/2025
Decision date: 22 May 2026
Date decision served: 26 May 2026
Type of decision: Refusal of protection claim (asylum)
Decision date: 22 May 2026
Date decision served: 26 May 2026
Type of decision: Refusal of protection claim (asylum)
3.
CONVENTION REASON AND COUNTRY OF ORIGIN
Convention reason relied on: Membership of a particular social group
Country of origin: Iran
Region or locality: Tehran and Karaj
Persecutor or actor of harm: State agents (police, intelligence, military)
Summary of the persecution feared:
The appellant is a gay man from Tehran who has lived in the United Kingdom since November 2024 and who openly identified as gay in social settings in Sheffield. He has a sustained social media presence under his real name with photographs at LGBT venues. His family in Iran has received summons letters from the IRGC since February 2026 about his social media activity. Same-sex sexual activity remains a criminal offence in Iran under articles 233 to 240 of the Islamic Penal Code 2013, carrying lashings and capital punishment for repeated offences. Return to Iran would expose him to the risk of arrest, prosecution and capital sentence.
Consequences of return:
On return the appellant would be questioned at Imam Khomeini International Airport by the Ettelaat (intelligence). Given the documented IRGC summons letters and the open social media trail, the risk of detention on arrival is real. Conviction under article 234 carries the death penalty for repeated lavat; lesser penalties include 100 lashes. Concealment of sexual orientation cannot avoid risk because the persecutor already has the evidence trail.
Country of origin: Iran
Region or locality: Tehran and Karaj
Persecutor or actor of harm: State agents (police, intelligence, military)
Summary of the persecution feared:
The appellant is a gay man from Tehran who has lived in the United Kingdom since November 2024 and who openly identified as gay in social settings in Sheffield. He has a sustained social media presence under his real name with photographs at LGBT venues. His family in Iran has received summons letters from the IRGC since February 2026 about his social media activity. Same-sex sexual activity remains a criminal offence in Iran under articles 233 to 240 of the Islamic Penal Code 2013, carrying lashings and capital punishment for repeated offences. Return to Iran would expose him to the risk of arrest, prosecution and capital sentence.
Consequences of return:
On return the appellant would be questioned at Imam Khomeini International Airport by the Ettelaat (intelligence). Given the documented IRGC summons letters and the open social media trail, the risk of detention on arrival is real. Conviction under article 234 carries the death penalty for repeated lavat; lesser penalties include 100 lashes. Concealment of sexual orientation cannot avoid risk because the persecutor already has the evidence trail.
4.
APPEAL GROUNDS SUMMARY
Grounds relied on:
— Refugee Convention 1951 Article 1A(2) — well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason
— European Convention on Human Rights Article 3 — protection from torture or inhuman or degrading treatment on return
Brief summary:
The appellant relies on the Refugee Convention 1951 Article 1A(2) on the basis of his membership of the particular social group of gay men in Iran, and on European Convention on Human Rights Article 3 on the basis of the documented risk of capital punishment and inhuman or degrading treatment on return. The Home Office decision applies a misreading of HJ (Iran) by treating concealment as available, fails to engage with the IRGC summons letters and the open social media trail, and applies the higher civil standard of proof contrary to Karanakaran.
Outcome sought from the Tribunal:
A determination that the appellant is a refugee within the meaning of the Refugee Convention 1951 and is entitled to leave to remain as such; alternatively a determination that return would breach ECHR Article 3.
— Refugee Convention 1951 Article 1A(2) — well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason
— European Convention on Human Rights Article 3 — protection from torture or inhuman or degrading treatment on return
Brief summary:
The appellant relies on the Refugee Convention 1951 Article 1A(2) on the basis of his membership of the particular social group of gay men in Iran, and on European Convention on Human Rights Article 3 on the basis of the documented risk of capital punishment and inhuman or degrading treatment on return. The Home Office decision applies a misreading of HJ (Iran) by treating concealment as available, fails to engage with the IRGC summons letters and the open social media trail, and applies the higher civil standard of proof contrary to Karanakaran.
Outcome sought from the Tribunal:
A determination that the appellant is a refugee within the meaning of the Refugee Convention 1951 and is entitled to leave to remain as such; alternatively a determination that return would breach ECHR Article 3.
5.
HJ (IRAN) DISCRETION TEST — PARTICULAR SOCIAL GROUP
(A) THE DISCRETION TEST. Per HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 31, the question is not whether the appellant could conceal their identity or characteristic on return so as to avoid persecution, but whether concealment is a result of fear of persecution. If the appellant would live openly and would face persecution for doing so, protection is engaged.
(B) EXTENSION TO POLITICAL OPINION AND NON-BELIEF. Per RT (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKSC 38, the principle in HJ (Iran) extends to political opinion and to the absence of belief. The appellant is not required to lie about their political views or to feign loyalty to avoid persecution.
(C) PARTICULAR SOCIAL GROUP DEFINITION. The particular social group relied on is gay men in Iran. The group meets the Qualification Regulations 2006 reg 6 criteria: a shared sexual orientation (innate characteristic) and a distinct identity in Iranian society (the group is recognised and targeted by Iranian law and society).
(D) APPLICATION OF THE TEST TO THE APPELLANT. On the HJ (Iran) test the appellant would live openly on return. He has lived openly in the United Kingdom for almost two years with sustained social media presence under his real name. Concealment on return would only be a result of fear of persecution under articles 233 to 240 of the Islamic Penal Code 2013. Living openly would result in arrest, prosecution and a real risk of capital punishment. The HJ (Iran) test is therefore engaged in the appellant favour.
(E) CONCEALMENT EVIDENCE. The IRGC summons letters dated 12 February 2026 and 30 March 2026, exhibited to the family witness statement of Mrs Mahnaz Karimi dated 4 June 2026, evidence that the Iranian state has identified the appellant by his open social media trail. Concealment on return is no longer available as a practical matter because the persecutor already has the evidence and the appellant identity.
(B) EXTENSION TO POLITICAL OPINION AND NON-BELIEF. Per RT (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKSC 38, the principle in HJ (Iran) extends to political opinion and to the absence of belief. The appellant is not required to lie about their political views or to feign loyalty to avoid persecution.
(C) PARTICULAR SOCIAL GROUP DEFINITION. The particular social group relied on is gay men in Iran. The group meets the Qualification Regulations 2006 reg 6 criteria: a shared sexual orientation (innate characteristic) and a distinct identity in Iranian society (the group is recognised and targeted by Iranian law and society).
(D) APPLICATION OF THE TEST TO THE APPELLANT. On the HJ (Iran) test the appellant would live openly on return. He has lived openly in the United Kingdom for almost two years with sustained social media presence under his real name. Concealment on return would only be a result of fear of persecution under articles 233 to 240 of the Islamic Penal Code 2013. Living openly would result in arrest, prosecution and a real risk of capital punishment. The HJ (Iran) test is therefore engaged in the appellant favour.
(E) CONCEALMENT EVIDENCE. The IRGC summons letters dated 12 February 2026 and 30 March 2026, exhibited to the family witness statement of Mrs Mahnaz Karimi dated 4 June 2026, evidence that the Iranian state has identified the appellant by his open social media trail. Concealment on return is no longer available as a practical matter because the persecutor already has the evidence and the appellant identity.
6.
COUNTRY GUIDANCE AND CPIN ENGAGEMENT
(A) CG STARTING POINT. Country Guidance determinations of the Upper Tribunal are starting points for any later tribunal addressing the same country issue. The Tribunal must follow the CG unless a departure is justified on new evidence or changed circumstances (Upper Tribunal Practice Direction on Country Guidance).
(B) CURRENT CG MATCH ANALYSIS. The current Country Guidance case is SSH and HR (illegal exit, female and male return on illegal exit) Iran CG [2022] UKUT 0117 (IAC) and the earlier CG SZ and JM (Christians, FS confirmed) Iran CG [2008] UKAIT 00082 on religion. On LGBT issues the Tribunal applies the Country Policy and Information Note on Iran: Sexual orientation and gender identity (latest May 2026) read against the principles in HJ (Iran). The appellant profile (gay man, open social media trail, IRGC summons) falls clearly within the identified-risk category.
(C) CPIN ENGAGEMENT. The May 2026 CPIN on Iran sexual orientation and gender identity acknowledges that same-sex sexual activity is criminalised under articles 233 to 240 of the Islamic Penal Code 2013 and that the death penalty applies for repeated lavat. The CPIN treats "openly identified" gay men as at risk; the appellant clearly meets that threshold on the evidence.
(D) DEPARTURE JUSTIFICATION. No departure from the CG is needed. The CG and the CPIN both support the appellant position. To the extent the SSHD decision selects sources to suggest a lower risk for "discreet" gay men, that is the HJ (Iran) error which the Supreme Court rejected.
(B) CURRENT CG MATCH ANALYSIS. The current Country Guidance case is SSH and HR (illegal exit, female and male return on illegal exit) Iran CG [2022] UKUT 0117 (IAC) and the earlier CG SZ and JM (Christians, FS confirmed) Iran CG [2008] UKAIT 00082 on religion. On LGBT issues the Tribunal applies the Country Policy and Information Note on Iran: Sexual orientation and gender identity (latest May 2026) read against the principles in HJ (Iran). The appellant profile (gay man, open social media trail, IRGC summons) falls clearly within the identified-risk category.
(C) CPIN ENGAGEMENT. The May 2026 CPIN on Iran sexual orientation and gender identity acknowledges that same-sex sexual activity is criminalised under articles 233 to 240 of the Islamic Penal Code 2013 and that the death penalty applies for repeated lavat. The CPIN treats "openly identified" gay men as at risk; the appellant clearly meets that threshold on the evidence.
(D) DEPARTURE JUSTIFICATION. No departure from the CG is needed. The CG and the CPIN both support the appellant position. To the extent the SSHD decision selects sources to suggest a lower risk for "discreet" gay men, that is the HJ (Iran) error which the Supreme Court rejected.
7.
STANDARD OF PROOF AND DEVASEELAN STARTING POINT
(A) KARANAKARAN — REASONABLE DEGREE OF LIKELIHOOD. Per Karanakaran v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] EWCA Civ 11, the standard of proof in a protection claim is the "reasonable degree of likelihood" of persecution or serious harm on return, not the civil "balance of probabilities". The lower standard reflects the gravity of the consequence if the assessment is wrong.
(B) APPLICATION TO THE EVIDENCE. The Home Office decision applies a higher civil standard to the appellant credibility findings. Karanakaran requires the lower "reasonable degree of likelihood" standard. On that standard the IRGC summons letters, the family witness statement, the open social media trail and the CPIN concession on identified-risk gay men together exceed the threshold for protection.
(C) DEVASEELAN STARTING POINT. Where there has been an earlier tribunal determination on the same appellant Devaseelan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] UKIAT 00702 (starred) requires the earlier findings to be the starting point. There is no earlier tribunal determination on this appellant. Devaseelan does not apply directly. The Tribunal therefore approaches the evidence at large on the Karanakaran standard.
(D) EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT POSITION. The SSHD credibility findings are based on minor inconsistencies in the screening and substantive interviews. The expert report of Dr A R Hassani on Iranian state intelligence practices, the documentary evidence of IRGC summons letters and the family witness statements together establish the persecution risk on the lower Karanakaran standard.
(B) APPLICATION TO THE EVIDENCE. The Home Office decision applies a higher civil standard to the appellant credibility findings. Karanakaran requires the lower "reasonable degree of likelihood" standard. On that standard the IRGC summons letters, the family witness statement, the open social media trail and the CPIN concession on identified-risk gay men together exceed the threshold for protection.
(C) DEVASEELAN STARTING POINT. Where there has been an earlier tribunal determination on the same appellant Devaseelan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] UKIAT 00702 (starred) requires the earlier findings to be the starting point. There is no earlier tribunal determination on this appellant. Devaseelan does not apply directly. The Tribunal therefore approaches the evidence at large on the Karanakaran standard.
(D) EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT POSITION. The SSHD credibility findings are based on minor inconsistencies in the screening and substantive interviews. The expert report of Dr A R Hassani on Iranian state intelligence practices, the documentary evidence of IRGC summons letters and the family witness statements together establish the persecution risk on the lower Karanakaran standard.
8.
INTERNAL RELOCATION ALTERNATIVE — JANUZI AND AH (SUDAN)
(A) THE TRIPLE TEST. Per Januzi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] UKHL 5 and AH (Sudan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] UKHL 49, internal relocation is available only where the proposed area is safe, accessible and where relocation would be reasonable in all the circumstances. Reasonableness is a holistic test that includes the appellant personal circumstances, livelihood, family ties and basic human dignity at the proposed location.
(B) REASONABLENESS. No internal relocation alternative is available. The persecutor is the Iranian state acting through the IRGC and the Ettelaat; the state operates nationally. Relocation to another city would not avoid risk; relocation outside major cities would not be reasonable given lack of livelihood and the appellant Tehran background, language and family ties.
(C) ACCESSIBILITY. Internal travel within Iran requires national identity card production at checkpoints. The appellant is on a watch list following the IRGC summons letters. Any internal travel would itself be an identification event.
(D) SAFETY. The Iranian state operates nationally through the IRGC and the Ettelaat intelligence service. Identification at registration or any state contact would expose the appellant to the same risk anywhere in Iran. Safety is not realistically available at any proposed internal location.
(B) REASONABLENESS. No internal relocation alternative is available. The persecutor is the Iranian state acting through the IRGC and the Ettelaat; the state operates nationally. Relocation to another city would not avoid risk; relocation outside major cities would not be reasonable given lack of livelihood and the appellant Tehran background, language and family ties.
(C) ACCESSIBILITY. Internal travel within Iran requires national identity card production at checkpoints. The appellant is on a watch list following the IRGC summons letters. Any internal travel would itself be an identification event.
(D) SAFETY. The Iranian state operates nationally through the IRGC and the Ettelaat intelligence service. Identification at registration or any state contact would expose the appellant to the same risk anywhere in Iran. Safety is not realistically available at any proposed internal location.
9.
CONCLUSION AND DETERMINATION SOUGHT
For the reasons set out above I respectfully ask the First-tier Tribunal to allow this appeal and to find that I am entitled to recognition as a refugee under the Refugee Convention 1951 and to protection under the European Convention on Human Rights. I will respond promptly to directions of the Tribunal and will engage with the Home Office in the preparation of the appeal bundle.
APPELLANT
Behzad Karimi
Date: ____________________
Available as a print-ready PDF or an editable Microsoft Word (.docx) file.
What Is an Asylum FTT Appeal?
An Asylum Appeal is the United Kingdom statutory route to challenge a Home Office refusal of protection. The appeal lies to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), the dedicated tribunal for immigration and asylum cases. The substantive grounds available are recognition as a refugee under the 1951 Refugee Convention Article 1A(2), humanitarian protection (HP) under the Qualification Directive (retained), and European Convention on Human Rights Articles 3 and 8. Appeals are governed by the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (as updated by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 section 12 — still in force post-BSAI 2025) and the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014. The Tribunal sits at hearing centres across England, Scotland and Wales (Belfast for Northern Ireland appeals).
The Refugee Convention 1951 Article 1A(2) recognises a well-founded fear of persecution for one of five Convention reasons — race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group. The leading United Kingdom framework on particular social group (and political opinion) is HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 31 — the discretion test asks not whether the appellant could conceal their identity or characteristic on return so as to avoid persecution, but whether concealment is the result of fear of persecution. If the appellant would live openly and would face persecution for doing so, protection is engaged. RT (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKSC 38 confirms the same framework for political opinion.
The standard of proof in a protection claim is lower than the civil standard. Per Karanakaran v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] EWCA Civ 11, the standard is the "reasonable degree of likelihood" of persecution or serious harm on return — not the civil "balance of probabilities". The lower standard reflects the gravity of the consequence if the assessment is wrong. Where the appellant has appealed before (on different grounds or against an earlier decision), the Court of Appeal in Devaseelan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] UKIAT 00702 sets the starting-point principle — findings of fact made on a previous appeal are the starting point for the second appeal. Country Guidance determinations of the Upper Tribunal are starting points for any later tribunal addressing the same country issue (Upper Tribunal Practice Direction).
What's Covered in This Template
Our United Kingdom Asylum FTT appeal template builds a structured Notice of Appeal — appellant identification, Home Office decision being appealed, Convention reason and country of origin, appeal grounds summary — with four Expert clauses on the HJ (Iran) discretion test, country guidance and CPIN engagement, the Karanakaran standard with Devaseelan starting-point, and the Januzi / AH (Sudan) internal-relocation triple test.
Three Substantive Grounds — Refugee Convention + HP + ECHR
Covers all three substantive grounds: (i) recognition as a refugee under the Refugee Convention 1951 Article 1A(2); (ii) humanitarian protection (HP) under the Qualification Directive (retained); (iii) European Convention on Human Rights Articles 3 (inhuman or degrading treatment) and 8 (family / private life). Each ground is separately stated.
Five Convention Reasons
The five Refugee Convention reasons: race, religion, nationality, political opinion and membership of a particular social group. The template auto-frames the relevant Convention reason and signposts the controlling caselaw — HJ (Iran) on PSG and political opinion; RT (Zimbabwe) on political opinion attribution.
Home Office Reference and Decision Date
Captures the Home Office reference (K-number or A-number on the refusal letter), the decision date and the refusal grounds. The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014 set different notice-of-appeal windows for detained, in-country and out-of-country appellants.
Detained / In-Country / Out-of-Country Status
Pre-frames the appellant's status. Detained appellants have a shorter notice window and the United Kingdom Tribunal lists hearings on an accelerated timetable. In-country appellants have the standard notice window. Out-of-country appellants have a different procedural route — appeals are typically heard in the absence of the appellant.
HJ (Iran) Discretion Test (Expert)
Expert clause structures the HJ (Iran) discretion test. Per HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 31, the question is not whether the appellant could conceal their identity or characteristic on return so as to avoid persecution, but whether concealment is a result of fear of persecution. The framework applies to PSG (particularly LGBTI cases) and to political opinion (RT (Zimbabwe)).
Country Guidance and CPIN Engagement (Expert)
Expert clause covers Country Guidance and Country Policy and Information Notes (CPINs). Country Guidance determinations of the Upper Tribunal are starting points for any later tribunal addressing the same country issue — departure is justified only on new evidence or changed circumstances. The CPIN sets out the Home Office position. Engaging with the CG headnote and the CPIN by name strengthens the appeal.
Karanakaran Standard + Devaseelan Starting-Point (Expert)
Expert clause structures the standard of proof and the second-appeal starting point. Per Karanakaran v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] EWCA Civ 11, the standard is the "reasonable degree of likelihood" — not the civil "balance of probabilities". Per Devaseelan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] UKIAT 00702, findings of fact made on a previous appeal are the starting point for the second appeal.
Januzi + AH (Sudan) Internal-Relocation Triple Test (Expert)
Expert clause covers the internal-relocation alternative under Januzi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] UKHL 5 and AH (Sudan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] UKHL 49. The triple test: relocation is available only where the proposed area is safe, accessible, and where relocation would be reasonable in all the circumstances. Reasonableness is a holistic test including personal circumstances, livelihood, family ties and basic human dignity.
NIAA 2002 + NABA 2022 Section 12 Coverage
Pre-frames the substantive law under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 as updated by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 section 12 (the well-founded fear test and the standard of proof). The NIAA 2002 framework remains in force post-Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025. The United Kingdom statutory regime is the foundation; the caselaw frameworks above operate within it.
Appellant Identification and Status
Captures the appellant's full name, nationality, date of birth, current status (asylum claim pending, in-country, detained, out-of-country) and contact / representative details. Where the appellant is a vulnerable adult or unaccompanied child, the United Kingdom Joint Presidential Guidance on vulnerable witnesses applies and the safeguarding section is enabled.
Statement of Grounds for Appeal
Pre-frames a structured statement of grounds — Convention reason engaged, well-founded fear, attributable persecution actor, lack of state protection, no internal-relocation alternative, and humanitarian protection / ECHR grounds in the alternative. Each ground is separately stated and aligned with the controlling caselaw framework.
Conclusion and Determination Sought
Pre-drafts the conclusion: the Tribunal is asked to allow the appeal and find that the appellant is entitled to recognition as a refugee under the Refugee Convention 1951 (or, in the alternative, humanitarian protection or ECHR protection). The Tribunal has full power to substitute its own decision under the Tribunal Procedure Rules 2014.
How to Build an Asylum FTT Appeal Notice
Follow these steps to produce a structured United Kingdom Notice of Appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) within the rules 19-19A notice window.
- 1
Identify the Appellant
Capture the appellant's full name (matching the Home Office decision letter), nationality, date of birth and current status (in-country, detained, out-of-country). Include representative details where instructed — solicitor name and firm, OISC adviser, McKenzie friend. The Home Office reference (K-number or A-number) is the primary identifier in the United Kingdom.
- 2
Capture the Home Office Decision Being Appealed
Record the date of the Home Office decision, the decision-maker reference (K-number or A-number on the refusal letter, typically a letter-and-digit combination) and the refusal grounds. The Tribunal uses the Home Office reference to retrieve the full Home Office file.
- 3
Pick the Right Notice Window
The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014 set different notice windows. Detained appellants — shorter window, accelerated timetable. In-country appellants — standard window. Out-of-country appellants — different procedural route (appeals typically heard in absence). The window runs from the date of the decision, not from receipt.
- 4
State the Convention Reason and Country of Origin
The Refugee Convention 1951 Article 1A(2) recognises five Convention reasons — race, religion, nationality, political opinion, particular social group. State the relevant reason explicitly and the country of origin. The country of origin information (COI) drives the Country Guidance / CPIN engagement at the United Kingdom hearing.
- 5
Summarise the Appeal Grounds
Set out the appeal grounds — Convention reason engaged, well-founded fear, attributable persecution actor, lack of state protection, no internal-relocation alternative, ECHR Article 3 / 8 grounds in the alternative. Each ground is separately stated. The detailed framework comes in the Expert clauses; the summary gives the Tribunal a roadmap on first read.
- 6
Frame the HJ (Iran) Discretion Test Where PSG / Political Opinion (Expert)
Expert clause. Per HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 31, the question is not whether the appellant could conceal their identity or characteristic on return so as to avoid persecution, but whether concealment is a result of fear of persecution. The same framework applies to political opinion (RT (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKSC 38).
- 7
Engage with Country Guidance and CPIN by Name (Expert)
Expert clause. Country Guidance determinations of the Upper Tribunal are starting points — engage with the CG headnote by name. The CPIN sets out the Home Office position. Where the CG supports the appellant, cite it; where a departure is invited (on new evidence or changed circumstances), set out why the departure is justified.
- 8
Apply the Karanakaran Standard with Devaseelan Starting-Point (Expert)
Expert clause. Per Karanakaran v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] EWCA Civ 11, the standard is the "reasonable degree of likelihood" of persecution or serious harm on return — not the civil "balance of probabilities". Where there is a previous appeal, Devaseelan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] UKIAT 00702 sets the starting point — findings of fact made on the previous appeal are the starting point for the second appeal in the United Kingdom.
- 9
Address Internal Relocation on the Triple Test (Expert)
Expert clause. Per Januzi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] UKHL 5 and AH (Sudan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] UKHL 49, internal relocation is available only where the proposed area is safe, accessible and where relocation would be reasonable in all the circumstances. Reasonableness is a holistic test including personal circumstances, livelihood, family ties and basic human dignity at the proposed location.
- 10
Sign the Notice and Lodge with the Tribunal
Sign the Notice of Appeal and lodge with the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). The Tribunal acknowledges receipt, gives the Home Office time to file a response bundle, and lists the hearing typically within 3-6 months (detained) or 6-12 months (in-country). Hearings are oral with the appellant attending in person or by video link.
Why Doxuno documents are different
Four things that make our templates more thorough than AI-generated drafts and more current than static template libraries.
Always current
Always current with the law
Templates carrying statute references are continuously updated as the law changes. Your document always reflects the current legal framework.
Free PDF
Print-ready PDF
Free to download. Vector text, embedded fonts, statute citations baked in. Print, sign, file. Ready for any signing flow including electronic signature.
Word · .docx
Editable Word (.docx)
Continue editing in Word after download. Add custom clauses, reuse the template for similar agreements, or share with a colleague for collaborative review.
Requires Expert one-time unlock or any paid Doxuno subscription.
Legal Considerations — Asylum FTT Appeal
Asylum and protection claims in the United Kingdom are governed by the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (as updated by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 section 12, still in force post-Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025), the Immigration Rules Part 11, the Refugee Convention 1951 and the European Convention on Human Rights. Appeals are governed by the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014.
This template is for general information and does not constitute legal advice. Asylum appeals involve substantive international protection law, statutory interpretation, complex country-of-origin evidence, and significant consequences (removal to the country of origin where protection is refused). Specialist advice from a Legal Aid solicitor, an OISC-registered immigration adviser at Level 2 / 3, or a barrister of the Asylum and Immigration Practitioners Association (AIPA) is strongly recommended for any asylum appeal. The Refugee Council and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) provide additional support; Legal Aid is available subject to means and merits testing.
Reviewed for the United Kingdom (England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland)
Refugee Convention 1951 and the Five Convention Reasons
The Refugee Convention 1951 Article 1A(2) recognises as a refugee any person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of their nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear, unwilling to avail themself of the protection of that country. The HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 31 and RT (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKSC 38 line of authority is the leading United Kingdom framework for the particular social group and political opinion categories — the discretion test asks whether concealment is a result of fear of persecution.
Karanakaran Standard of Proof
Per Karanakaran v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] EWCA Civ 11, the standard of proof in a protection claim is the "reasonable degree of likelihood" of persecution or serious harm on return, not the civil "balance of probabilities". The lower standard reflects the gravity of the consequence if the assessment is wrong. The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 section 12 codifies the test in primary legislation but does not raise the standard. The standard applies across asylum, humanitarian protection and ECHR Article 3 claims in the United Kingdom.
HJ (Iran) Discretion Test
Per HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 31, the question on a protection claim involving particular social group (most prominently LGBTI cases) or political opinion is not whether the appellant could conceal their identity or characteristic on return so as to avoid persecution, but whether concealment is a result of fear of persecution. If the appellant would live openly and would face persecution for doing so, protection is engaged. RT (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKSC 38 confirms the same framework for political opinion. HJ (Iran) is the load-bearing test for many protection claims and must be applied even where the appellant has previously concealed identity or political belief.
Country Guidance, CPIN and Internal Relocation
Country Guidance determinations of the Upper Tribunal are starting points for any later tribunal addressing the same country issue (Upper Tribunal Practice Direction on Country Guidance). Departure is justified only on new evidence or changed circumstances. The Country Policy and Information Note (CPIN) sets out the Home Office position. On internal relocation, per Januzi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] UKHL 5 and AH (Sudan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] UKHL 49, the triple test is safe + accessible + reasonable. Reasonableness is a holistic test including personal circumstances, livelihood, family ties and basic human dignity at the proposed relocation area. Where there is a previous United Kingdom appeal, Devaseelan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] UKIAT 00702 sets the starting-point principle for second appeals.
Frequently Asked Questions
Build Your Asylum FTT Appeal Notice
Produce a structured United Kingdom Notice of Appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) — appellant identification with detained / in-country / out-of-country status, Home Office decision being appealed (K-number or A-number, decision date, refusal grounds), Convention reason and country of origin, appeal grounds summary, and four Expert clauses on the HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 31 discretion test, Country Guidance and CPIN engagement, the Karanakaran v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] EWCA Civ 11 reasonable-degree-of-likelihood standard with Devaseelan [2002] UKIAT 00702 starting-point, and the Januzi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] UKHL 5 / AH (Sudan) [2007] UKHL 49 internal-relocation triple test. Lodged with the Tribunal under the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014 within the notice window.
Free PDF · Editable Word with Expert · No account required