What the 2026 SU (Expert Reports - Format) Bangladesh Decision Means for South Asia Expert Evidence

The Upper Tribunal decision in SU (Expert reports - format) Bangladesh [2026] UKUT 00317 (IAC) provides guidance on the preparation and presentation of expert evidence, particularly where an expert report evaluates digital open-source information.

Although the case concerned Bangladesh, some of the observations about expert reports may be relevant when considering country expert evidence concerning other South Asian countries. The application of those observations will depend on the circumstances of the individual case, the instructions given to the expert, and the expert's area of expertise.

For solicitors instructing a South Asia country expert, the decision provides several points to consider when preparing instructions and reviewing expert evidence.

What Was the SU Case About?

The appeal concerned a protection claim involving Bangladesh. The Upper Tribunal considered the appellant's circumstances and the country evidence relevant to the claim.

The decision also considered issues concerning the preparation and presentation of expert evidence based on information available through digital and other publicly accessible sources.

The Tribunal's observations provide a useful reference when considering how a South Asia country expert report can distinguish between source material and the expert's own analysis.

What Does the Decision Say About Expert Reports?

The decision discusses several features that may assist the Tribunal when assessing expert evidence.

These include:

• Clear identification of sources
• Appropriate use of primary source material where reasonably available
• Clear distinction between quoted material and the expert's own analysis
• Consideration of the individual facts of the case where the expert has been asked to address them
• Proper attention to the expert's area of expertise
• A clear explanation of the basis for the expert's opinions

These considerations should not be treated as a universal checklist for every expert report. The appropriate content and structure will depend on the questions the expert has been instructed to address.

Keeping the Expert's Analysis Distinct From Source Material

A country expert may need to consider a substantial amount of publicly available information. Depending on the subject, this could include government publications, legislation, court material, academic research, reports by organisations, local reporting and other digital sources.

The distinction between source material and the expert's own analysis is important.

Where an expert relies on published material, the report should make the source identifiable. Where material is quoted, it should be clear that it is a quotation rather than material written by the expert.

This can help the reader distinguish between:

• Information contained in the underlying source
• The expert's assessment of that information
• The expert's own opinion within their area of expertise

For a South Asia country expert report, this distinction can be particularly relevant where a report considers information from numerous sources concerning political, social, religious or other country conditions.

Identifying Sources Clearly

Country expert evidence may draw on sources produced by different organisations and institutions.

Depending on the issue being examined, relevant material may include official publications, legislation, court decisions, academic research, reports from organisations and reliable local or international reporting.

The SU decision highlights the importance of identifying the sources relied upon.

Clear source identification can make it easier for legal representatives and the Tribunal to understand the basis for particular statements and opinions.

It can also help distinguish an expert's interpretation of information from the underlying information itself.

Primary Sources and Secondary Reporting

The Tribunal's observations also address the use of primary and secondary sources.

Where a primary source is reasonably available, there may be value in referring directly to it rather than relying solely on a news article or other secondary account describing the material.

For example, a report may discuss a government announcement, court decision or published report. Where the original material can reasonably be identified and accessed, referring to that material may provide a clearer basis for the expert's analysis.

This does not mean that news reporting or other secondary sources are necessarily unsuitable. Such material may provide useful evidence about events and developments, particularly where primary information is unavailable or difficult to obtain.

The relevance and reliability of a source will depend on the particular issue being examined.

Digital Open-Source Information in Expert Evidence

Digital open-source information can form an important part of modern country-condition research.

It may include publicly accessible government websites, publications by organisations, academic material, news reports, court documents and other online sources.

The fact that information is available online does not, by itself, establish its reliability or relevance. An expert may need to consider the nature of the source, the date of publication, the information available to the source and how it relates to the question being addressed.

For solicitors reviewing expert evidence for asylum appeals, it can therefore be useful to consider whether the report makes the basis of its analysis sufficiently clear.

Addressing the Individual Facts of the Case

General country information does not necessarily answer every question arising in an individual protection claim.

Where an expert has been instructed to consider how particular country conditions relate to specified facts, the expert may need to address those facts within the limits of their expertise.

For example, instructions may ask an expert to consider whether particular circumstances could affect how a person may be treated in their country of origin.

The expert does not determine the legal outcome of the appeal. Their role is to provide independent evidence and opinion on matters falling within their expertise.

The distinction between expert analysis and the Tribunal's decision-making role should therefore remain clear.

Giving the Expert the Relevant Factual Material

The quality and scope of an expert report may depend in part on the information provided in the instructions.

Where an expert is asked to address particular circumstances, the relevant factual background should be identified sufficiently clearly for the expert to understand the question being asked.

An expert should not be expected to resolve factual or legal issues that fall outside their expertise.

For this reason, solicitors may wish to identify the specific factual assumptions or findings that the expert is being asked to consider.

Preserved Findings and Expert Instructions

In some appeals, earlier proceedings may have resulted in findings of fact that remain relevant to a later decision.

The SU decision refers to the need for the expert to have regard to relevant preserved findings when addressing the particular circumstances of the case.

This is another reason why carefully prepared instructions can be important.

Where an expert is asked to provide an opinion based on specified factual circumstances, the report should make clear the factual basis on which that opinion is expressed.

The expert is not being asked to replace the Tribunal's assessment of disputed facts. The purpose is to provide specialist evidence based on the matters properly put before the expert.

Responding to Questions About an Expert Report

Expert evidence may be subject to questions or challenges during an immigration or asylum appeal.

Issues may concern the sources used, the interpretation of information, the methodology adopted, or the basis for an opinion.

Where a relevant issue is raised, the expert may need to address it within their area of expertise.

The expert's role remains to assist the Tribunal independently rather than to advocate for either party.

This distinction is important where there is disagreement about the evidence. An expert can explain the basis for their professional opinion without becoming an advocate for the party who instructed them.

What This Means When Instructing a South Asia Country Expert

The SU decision can provide useful considerations for solicitors preparing instructions for a South Asia country expert.

The precise questions will depend on the individual case. However, instructions may be clearer where they identify the specific country-condition issue requiring expert evidence rather than requesting a broad assessment of the country as a whole.

For example, the instructions might identify a particular political, social, religious, regional or other issue that requires specialist country knowledge.

Keep the Questions Specific

A focused instruction can help the expert understand the purpose and scope of the report.

Instead of requesting a general report about conditions in a country, legal representatives may wish to identify the particular questions that require specialist evidence.

The appropriate questions will depend on the facts of the case and the issues that remain to be determined.

Provide Relevant Background Information

Where an opinion is requested about particular circumstances, the expert should have sufficient factual information to understand the question.

This may include relevant documents, information about the appellant's circumstances, previous findings where applicable, and the specific issues that the expert has been asked to consider.

The expert can then explain the extent to which the available country information assists with the questions raised.

Make Sources Traceable

Where online material is relied upon, the report should identify the relevant source clearly enough for the reader to understand where the information came from.

This can be particularly useful where information has been reproduced by another publication, translated, summarised or discussed in secondary reporting.

Clear source identification can also assist when the evidence is reviewed or challenged later in the proceedings.

Does the Decision Apply Only to Bangladesh Cases?

The SU case concerned Bangladesh, and the factual circumstances of that appeal should not automatically be treated as applicable to every South Asia asylum claim.

The decision's discussion of expert reports may nevertheless be relevant when considering expert evidence concerning other countries, particularly where similar questions arise about the use and presentation of digital open-source information.

That does not mean that the decision creates identical requirements for every country expert report.

Country conditions, available sources, expert methodology and the questions requiring evidence can differ considerably between cases.

The relevance of the decision should therefore be considered in the context of the particular expert report and appeal.

Practical Points for Legal Representatives

When preparing or reviewing a South Asia country expert report, legal representatives may wish to consider whether:

• The instructions identify the specific issue requiring expert evidence
• The factual background relevant to the expert's questions is sufficiently clear
• The questions fall within the proposed expert's area of expertise
• Sources relied upon in the report are clearly identified
• Quoted material can be distinguished from the expert's own analysis
• Primary sources have been considered where reasonably available and relevant
• The expert has addressed the questions contained in the instructions
• Relevant individual facts have been considered where the expert has been asked to address them
• Any material concerns about the expert's analysis have been addressed appropriately

These are practical considerations rather than a substitute for assessing the procedural requirements or evidence in an individual case.

How This Relates to South Asia Country Condition Evidence

Country condition evidence can involve a large and changing body of material.

For countries such as Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bhutan, the relevant information may vary according to the issue being examined, the location involved and the period under consideration.

A South Asia country expert report may therefore need to explain not only what information has been identified, but also how the expert has evaluated that information within their specialist knowledge.

The SU decision provides a useful reminder of the importance of clarity in this process.

Conclusion

The SU (Expert reports - format) Bangladesh [2026] UKUT 00317 (IAC) decision provides guidance concerning the preparation and presentation of expert evidence, including evidence that evaluates digital open-source information.

For solicitors instructing a South Asia country expert, the decision highlights practical considerations around source identification, use of primary material, distinction between source material and expert analysis, and consideration of the particular questions put to the expert.

The decision does not determine how an individual expert report will be treated in every appeal. The relevance and weight of expert evidence will depend on the circumstances of the case, the evidence available and the issues the Tribunal is required to determine.

For information about commissioning country-condition evidence, see the relevant South Asia Reports service and instruction pages on this website.

Disclaimer: This article provides general information about the SU (Expert reports - format) Bangladesh decision and expert evidence. It is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as a substitute for advice on an individual case. Last Reviewed: September 2026