It was not possible to reconcile the decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal in this case with the broadly stated observations of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal in Indra Gurung v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2002) UKIAT 04870, where it had observed that Nepalese authorities would not limit themselves to a legitimate process of prosecution for members of the Communist Party of Nepal.Appeal from the decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal ('IAT') on 9 October 2002 to uphold the decision of the adjudicator that the appellant ('G') was not at risk of persecution if returned to Nepal. G was a member of the Communist Party of Nepal ('the CPN Maoist Party') and was the General Secretary of the student branch at a campus. On 26 August 1999, G had been arrested and detained for 24 hours for distributing newsletters. G was released on payment of a fine. In November 1999 police declared G and other Maoist activists to be responsible for a fire at the college, and a national warrant for G's arrest was issued which stated that G was suspected of obstructing the peace and security, and referred to his membership of a banned organisation. G went into hiding, and his parents and sister were questioned. The IAT held that: (i) on a national scale, G's office would be seen as low level, but was of significance at local level such that G was bound to attract the attention of the authorities; (ii) any prosecution of G would not be persecutory; (iii) G would receive a fair trial in Nepalese courts; and (iv) G was unlikely to be subjected to ill treatment in detention as he would not be seen as sufficiently important by the police. On 14 October 2002 the IAT handed down a decision in Indra Gurung v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2002) UKIAT 04870, in which it observed that the Nepalese authorities would not limit themselves to a legitimate process of prosecution for members of the CPN Maoist Party.HELD: (1) The relevant passages from Indra Gurung (supra) were not limited to the facts of that case. (2) It was not possible to reconcile the observations made by the IAT in the present case with the very broadly stated observations of the IAT in Indra Gurung (supra), which related to Maoist sympathisers generally. (3) The IAT in the present case had not taken account of all the material available to the IAT as a whole.Appeal allowed. Matter remitted.