A Bangladeshi national, who was accused of "fabricating his homosexuality" to secure asylum in the UK, has been granted permission to appeal by an immigration judge.

The 40-year-old man, who cannot be named due to legal reasons, entered the UK legally on a student visa in 2018 and claimed asylum in 2022, stating he would be at risk if he returned to Bangladesh as a homosexual man.

His claim was initially dismissed in October 2023 – a decision which the asylum-seeker, known as SD, appealed on humanitarian protection grounds.

In November 2024, a judge at a first tier tribunal in Newcastle ruled that SD was "not a homosexual man", and rejected the appeal.

"He was aware that several of his close associates had been granted asylum on the basis of their homosexuality and he... had decided to do the same," the judge stated at the time.

However, in a decision published on Wednesday, upper tribunal judge Christopher John Hanson said evidence from SD's romantic partner was ignored and excluded from the final decision.

"(His partner) is someone who gave direct evidence of the relationship he is involved in with the appellant and who has direct knowledge of the appellant's sexuality," the judge wrote.

"At no point does the judge refer to the evidence of that witness or indicate what weight was given to that evidence."

Judge Hanson criticised the original ruling, stating: "I find that to be material omission by the judge," and added this raised "an issue of fairness (as) a core part of the evidence was not properly factored into the decision-making process".

He also found that supporting accounts from fellow members of the local LGBTQ community were "unfairly mischaracterised" during the proceedings at the first-tier tribunal in Newcastle.

In the initial tribunal decision, the judge had written: "(These witnesses) may be homosexual men... That does not mean that the appellant is.

"These witnesses can at best only say that the appellant has told them that he is a homosexual man and said he had a partner."

However, Judge Hanson disputed this finding, writing: "That was not their evidence.

"They confirmed that they attended the informal wedding ceremony for the appellant and his partner..

"They were also aware that the appellant identifies himself as a gay man within the LGBTQ community.

"It is a complete and unfair characterisation of their evidence to suggest that they can at best only say what they have been told, when they have clearly all met the appellant and his partner personally and witnessed the appellant and his partner being active in the LGBTQ community.."

As a result, Judge Hanson decided to send the case back to the first-tier tribunal to be heard by a different judge.