Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2022-003505

First-tier Tribunal No: HU/14017/2019

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 21 August 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KEBEDE
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MAHMOOD

Between

QUY VAN TU
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr M Allison, Counsel instructed by Rahman and Co. Solicitors.
For the Respondent: Mr P Skinner, Counsel instructed by the Government Legal Department.

Heard at Field House on 9 June 2025

DECISION AND REASONS

Introduction
1. This decision follows the hearing of the Appellant’s appeal after having been remitted to the Upper Tribunal by the Court of Appeal to remake the decision in the appeal pursuant to section 12(2)(b) of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The Court of Appeal had ordered that the earlier decision of the Upper Tribunal issued on 1 February 2024 be set aside with preserved findings in respect of certain matters.

Background
2. The Statement of Reasons appended to the Court of Appeal’s order provides an agreed background to the matter. It states as follows:
“STATEMENT OF REASONS
1. The Appellant is a national of Vietnam who claims to have come to the UK illegally in 2006. In 2008, he claimed asylum. That was refused and his appeal to the First-tier Tribunal was dismissed.
2. In 2016, the Appellant made an application for leave on the basis that he was stateless. This, and his administrative review, was refused in 2018.
3. In 2019, the Appellant made an application on the basis of his family life with a British partner. This too was refused. It is this application that gave rise to the present proceedings. His appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (“FTT”) was dismissed in 2020, but was set aside by the FTT under rule 35 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014 due to a material error of law, resulting in a fresh hearing before the FTT.
4. The Appellant’s case at this further hearing was that the decision to remove violated Article 8. The FTT accepted this in a determination promulgated on 7 June 2022, but the Secretary of State appealed. In his error of law decision of 21 August 2023, Upper Tribunal Judge Keith found that there was an error of law and set aside the decision of the FTT. He retained the findings made at paragraphs 34 to 40 of the FTT determination, noting that the Appellant may seek to obtain further evidence on his ability to obtain identity documents, and retained the appeal in the Upper Tribunal for remaking. The Judge gave directions that the Appellant was to file any evidence he wished to rely on 21 days before the resumed hearing, and the Secretary of State had leave, if so advised, to file any further documentation she intended to rely upon and in response to the Claimant’s evidence, by no later than 14 days before the resumed hearing.
5. The Appellant did not comply with those directions. A country expert from Dr Tran Thi Lan Anh (Dr Tran) was filed and served on 2 January 2024. A written application to admit this report pursuant to rule 15(2A) of the Tribunal Procedure Rules was submitted on 8 January 2024 prior to the remake hearing on that date.
6. At the hearing, the Appellant did not call Dr Tran to give oral evidence. Before the hearing began on 8 January 2024, the Respondent’s senior presenting officer indicated that the rule 15(2A) application was not opposed. She also indicated that no application would be made to adjourn on the basis that the implications of Dr Tran’s country expert report could be properly addressed by the Respondent through oral submissions.
7. On the remaking hearing, Judge Keith accepted Dr Tran’s evidence that the Appellant could not be redocumented in the UK, but did not accept her evidence that he could not be redocumented in Vietnam. He therefore dismissed the Appellant’s appeal.
8. On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the Appellant submits (inter alia) that the points raised by the Secretary of State had to be put to Dr Tran in cross-examination and that it was unfair to for the Upper Tribunal to have decided the case against the Appellant without the Secretary of State having done so.
9. Without formally conceding the correctness of the grounds, the Secretary of State can see that in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in TUI UK Ltd v Griffiths [2023] UKSC 48 (which was not cited to the Upper Tribunal) there is a risk of the remaking hearing being considered to have been unfair and the Secretary of State considers that a proportionate approach to these proceedings is accordingly for the remaking hearing to itself be remade.
10. In those circumstances, the parties have agreed that:
(a) The appeal should be allowed and the decision of the Upper Tribunal dated 29 January 2024 set aside;
(b) The appeal should be remitted to the Upper Tribunal for a further remaking hearing;
(c) The original findings at paragraphs 34 to 40 of the FTT determination shall be preserved”

The Issues
3. We are required to consider whether the Respondent’s decision dated 31 July 2019 breaches the Appellant’s rights under Article 8 ECHR.
4. The Appellant relies on a skeleton argument, which at paragraphs 4 and 6 summarises the issues as follows:
(i) Does the evidence establish that the Appellant would not be able to obtain relevant Vietnamese identity documents within a reasonable period of his return to Vietnam?
(ii) If so, would this result in the Appellant encountering very significant obstacles to integration (and/or ‘insurmountable obstacles’ to his family life continuing outside the UK)?
5. The Respondent’s skeleton argument dated 2 June 2025 states,
“…the single issue is whether the Appellant can prove, on the balance of probabilities, that he will be unable to be redocumented:

a. If he cannot prove that he cannot be redocumented, then he does not meet the requirements of the immigration rules, there are no insurmountable obstacles to his reintegration, or the continuation of his family life in Vietnam and his private and family life are to be given little weight, having been established while he has been here illegally. In those circumstances, his Article 8 claim must fail.
b. If he can prove that he cannot be redocumented, then he meets the requirements of paragraph 276ADE(1)(vi) (as was – now replicated in Appendix Private Life, PL 5.1(b)) and, as such, that is in effect dispositive of his Article 8 claim in his favour.”
6. The preserved findings from the original hearing at the First-tier Tribunal are of some importance and so we refer to them in full and we note paragraph 40 of those findings in particular (underlining has been added for emphasis):
“34. There has been a decision by the Tribunal when on 25/09/2008 Judge Axtell did not find him credible in his asylum claim. Although this application is completely different from that application, it is an indication that another Tribunal have not found him to be truthful.
35. I accept that at the date of the application and before me the appellant cannot fulfil Appendix FM, because of his immigration status and because of the English requirement. I do not find that the appellant meets the requirements of Appendix-FM and the five-year partner route.
36. I now consider the ten-year route. I have applied the case of Agyarko which held that the requirement of “insurmountable obstacles” imposed a stringent test and was to be interpreted in a sensible and practical way rather than as referring solely to 3 obstacles which make it literally impossible for the family to live together in the applicant’s country of origin.
37. The appellant and the sponsor state that there are insurmountable obstacles to their continuing their family life in Vietnam. The respondent states that the appellant and Ms Nguyen have sufficient links to Vietnam to continue their family life there. I agree with the respondent that the appellant and Ms Nguyen do have sufficient links with Vietnam. The appellant stated in his asylum appeal that his father was politically involved, which was not accepted, and his mother had passed away due to a heart attack. There was no indication before me that the appellant is in contact with his parents, and he states that he left Vietnam in March 2006, and so I accept that he has no contact with any direct family members.
38. But Ms Nguyen has her mother and her stepfather in Vietnam, and she visits them regularly. She has set up a successful business in the United Kingdom, which has enabled her to buy a property. This is an indication to me that she could work or set up a business in Vietnam. I agree that there are no insurmountable obstacles from Ms Nguyen’s side that would prevent her from returning to live in Vietnam, except that she would prefer to remain here. This is a matter of choice for the appellant and Ms Nguyen.
39. The appellant and Ms Nguyen rely upon the appellant’s inability to obtain a passport, because he does not have the required identity documents. I have seen documents, which have not been disputed that in 2015, 2016 and 2019 he tried to obtain a passport so that he could marry Ms Nguyen and also to make an application on the basis of his being stateless, which was not accepted by the respondent.
40. It appeared to me from the evidence, that the reason the appellant has not been issued with a passport, is because he does not have documents to prove his identity, such as a birth certificate or an identity card. The appellant has stated that he needs to go to Vietnam to be issued with these documents in person. He states that his identity and family book have been lost. Neither the appellant nor the respondent provided any evidence that the appellant can or cannot obtain these documents remotely from Vietnam, by contacting the Vietnamese authorities from the United Kingdom, and requesting a copy of his birth certificate, or asking Ms Nguyen or a member of her family to try and obtain a copy of this document. The burden of proof is on the appellant. I do not find that on the facts of this case there are currently “insurmountable obstacles” within the test set out in Agyarko which would cause the appellant or the sponsor very significant difficulties or very serious hardship.”

The Hearing Before Us
7. We were provided with a substantial number of documents in a bundle comprising 642 pages. Both parties had also provided notices pursuant to The Tribunal (Upper Tribunal) Procedure Rules Rule 15(2A), seeking the admission of further evidence. The Rule 15(2) applications were sensibly dealt with at the start of the hearing by the parties agreeing that if we were to admit one party’s further evidence then the other party’s evidence also ought to be admitted. We considered that it was in the interests of justice to admit each party’s new evidence because the new evidence dealt with matters which arose since the original hearing and because the evidence provided the latest evidence in respect of identity documentation. That being the issue at the heart of this matter before us. Thereafter, we provided the parties time to consider the new evidence which had been filed shortly before the hearing.
8. We heard oral evidence from Dr Tran Thi Lan Anh on behalf of the Appellant and we heard evidence from Mr Matthew Parnell on behalf of the Respondent.
9. We need not rehearse all of the substantial evidence that we heard and read, but we shall refer to those parts of the evidence which are relevant to our decision and to the issues which arise.
10. Dr Tran provided us with an updated CV at the hearing. That refers to her holding a PhD in International Law from the University of Leeds. Her CV also refers to her as a legal expert on the countries of South Asia with her main research interest in International Law Human Rights Law in socialist political systems including China, Vietnam, Cuba and North Korea. Her CV also states that she works as a Managing Partner at VietBrit Consulting Limited which provides training and consulting services to Vietnamese stage agencies and individuals. She had worked as a senior official for the Vietnamese Government from 1997 to 2013 with periods of official leave granted for studying and working in the UK.
11. Dr Tran had said in her written expert report dated 2 January 2024 that:
(1) The Appellant would not be able to obtain an identity card or other document from the Vietnamese authorities in Vietnam either directly or indirectly which would be required by the Appellant to obtain a passport to enable him to travel;
(2) There is a system of residential registration called a Ho Khau whereby the person is registered in the area in which they were born. It is in the form of a small booklet, similar to a passport. This is a registration booklet and it is required for a numerous official purpose, such as renting or buying a home, enrolment for school, healthcare, to open a bank account or to apply for a national identity card;
(3) A new Law on Residence came into effect in Vietnam on 1 July 2021 and that implements a new citizen card with a smart chip which also stores the Ho Khau registration information on the national database. As a result, those with the new citizen card would not need to provide their Ho Khau registration booklet separately;
(4) Because the Appellant does not possess any Vietnamese identification papers then the Appellant would not be likely to be able to obtain any Vietnamese identification papers, even if he made a personal visit to Vietnam to attempt to do so and no one else, such as his parents, would be able to do so for him either; and
(5) Without a Vietnamese national Identity card, the Appellant would become a homeless person and his partner would face significant difficulties in obtaining healthcare;
12. In her report of 13 January 2025 Dr Tran said,
(1) Since her previous report of 2 January 2024, the latest Law of Identification which had come into effect on 1 July 2024 contains a new provision on stateless persons at Article 30;
(2) However, Article 30 would not assist the Appellant because before he could apply for an identity card (not a citizen card), he would require residing in a commune or district for 6 months. Therefore, Dr Tran was of the view that her previous opinion in her earlier 2 January 2024 report had not changed;
(3) Even if the Appellant was to be issued with an identity card after 6 months, it remained unlikely that even then he would be able to obtain a Vietnamese citizen card for the reasons set out in the 2 January 2024 report;
(4) The Appellant was unlikely to be able to be issued with a national identity card because even if he provided information about his family, the authorities would not be satisfied that he was who he claimed to be without some form of acceptable identity in the first place. The Appellant claims to have left Vietnam in 2006, but the computerised database used in Vietnam only commenced on 1 July 2021 and so his details will not be on that database;
(5) An example was provided of Dr Tran and VietBrit Consulting Limited having obtained a citizen card but only after the original Ho Khau booklet had been found; and
(6) At internal page 25 of her report, Dr Tran concluded that there was no other process by which a person in the Appellant’s situation who had lost all relevant identity documents and without family members in Vietnam could apply for replacement documents.
13. We turn to Dr Tran’s oral evidence. Dr Tran said that despite the further evidence contained within Mr Parnell’s updating witness statement of 6 June 2025, she did not wish to change her opinions which were set out within her two reports.
14. Dr Tran said that in respect of the process involving the authorities directly (which we understood to mean the Home Office dealing with the Vietnamese Embassy), she did not dispute or challenge that evidence because “it was agreements between two governments”.
15. Dr Tran also referred to the new processes of ID cards and that there were different levels. There being a central level, a provincial level and also a district level. The provinces had become larger. Therefore, it was ‘a massive challenge’ to locate the information relating to one person. She referred also to changes in staff, including some having taken early retirement and so the number of people dealing with enquiries will have reduced. She said that there were insufficient human resources available to deal with enquiries. We understood her evidence to be that there would therefore be delays in finalising enquiries, including because there would be some paper files and some electronic files.
16. Dr Tran agreed that if someone is able to obtain an ID card then they can live a relatively normal life in Vietnam.
17. It was put to Dr Tran that she had not considered whether the Appellant could have the benefit of an ETD via the Home Office here in the UK. It was also put to Dr Tran that she had no experience of ETDs which are obtained via the Home Office. Dr Tran said in reply that she had not mentioned the circumstances of the Appellant and what can be done via the Embassy in the UK because in Vietnam a Citizen Card is required for principal activities. Pressed on this by Mr Skinner, Dr Tran said that her opinion was that a Citizen Card is required. She said some persons did get a Citizen Card. She said that this was on a case-by-case basis. Checks were made by the authorities before a Citizen Card is granted.
18. Dr Tran was asked about her second report. She said that although she had referred to those applicants with undetermined nationality, to obtain an ETD in the first place would require the Vietnamese authorities to be satisfied about the applicant’s nationality. Dr Tran referred to her experience of some 2 or 3 year prior when an interview took place with an applicant and an officer at the Vietnamese Embassy. Dr Tran’s said that “If they check if they are Vietnamese, if they speak Vietnamese, then the Vietnamese authorities issue a travel document.”
19. Dr Tran also said that another scenario was the authorities check at a “higher level” and that they check the national database with a unique number and if satisfied, the applicant will be issued a citizen card.
20. Dr Tran was asked whether, if on the assumption that an ETD was granted to an Appellant by the Vietnamese government, whether they would still be seen as stateless. Dr Tran initially referred again to those who were stateless. Pressed on this by Mr Skinner, Dr Tran said that if the Home Office could assure the Vietnamese authorities “…on the point, they can then ratify the client”. Dr Tran added though that even with a travel document it was unlikely that the Vietnamese authorities would confirm “it is the person”.
21. Dr Tran was also asked about the new procedure for citizen cards and she said that it was now easier to obtain citizen cards compared with when she had prepared her first report in 2024. Dr Tran appeared to agree that a wider number of documents could now be used to assist in obtaining citizen cards.
22. In response to questions from the Panel, Dr Tran said that of the persons she had assisted, none were “Home Office cases”.
23. We summarise some of Mr Matthew Parnel evidence. He had provided two witness statements. His first witness statement dated 24 December 2024 refers to him as the “Country Manager for Vietnam within Returns and Logistics Operations of the International and Returns function of Immigration Enforcement within the Home Office”. He explains he has worked for the Home Office for 25 years and held the Country Manager role since November 2023. He states that he has a longstanding understanding of returns procedures, having previously worked within Returns Logistics, including as a Migration Delivery Officer on an overseas diplomatic post. His main duties include managing the travel documentation process for returns to Vietnam, which involves working closely with Home Office colleagues based at the British Embassy in Hanoi who in turn liaise directly with the Vietnamese Ministry of Public Security to obtain travel documents.
24. Mr Matthew Parnell said in his witness statement of 24 December 2024 that:
(1) He accepted that the letter from the Vietnamese Embassy dated 2015, 2016 and 2019 indicated that the Vietnamese Embassy would be unlikely to issue a passport to the Appellant if he was to submit another application unless he was able to provide relevant supporting documentation;
(2) There is an established process for the Home Office to apply for Emergency Travel Documents (ETDs) directly from the Immigration Department of the Vietnamese Ministry of Public Security, without the involvement of the Vietnamese Embassy in the UK;
(3) The ETDs process did not require any supporting Vietnamese documentation;
(4) The Vietnamese Ministry of Public Security issues ETDs on a regular basis following applications made by the Home Office, the most recent of which was in December 2024 (being the date of that witness statement);
(5) The fact that a previous ETD application was refused in 2008 does not prevent a re-application. It was noted that the previous application was refused on the basis that it was thought that the Appellant might be Chinese, rather than Vietnamese, as the Appellant speaks some Mandarin,
(6) Whilst it was not possible to know the outcome of a future application in advance, in view of the Appellant saying he was born in Vietnam and in view of the various supporting witness statements and the evidence of Dr Tran which does not doubt he is Vietnamese, there appeared to be no reasons why the Vietnamese authorities would think on a future ETD application that the Appellant is not Vietnamese;
(7) Even though Dr Tran’s report was dated 2 January 2024, significant changes to the procedures and requirements for obtaining Citizenship Identification Cards (CID cards) came into effect in Vietnam in July 2021 but to which Dr Tran had not referred;
(8) It had been established via a named Home Office International Liaison Manager based at the British Embassy in Hanoi with the Immigration Department of the Vietnam Ministry of Public Security that those with an ETD could obtain a Citizenship Identity Card within 4 weeks of attending commune level police who will register the person on the population register;
(9) It was therefore not correct that an undocumented Vietnamese national in the UK cannot obtain the documents necessary to reintegrate back into Vietnamese society. Once an official Vietnamese travel document (either an ETD or passport) is issued, the individual in question would no longer be considered as undocumented by the Vietnamese authorities.
25. Mr Parnell’s second witness statement dated 6 June 2025 was said to have been provided to respond to matters raised in Mr Allison’s skeleton argument of 2 June 2025. Mr Parnell said:
(1) He had liaised with various persons including with the Home Office International Manager at the British Embassy in Hanoi, with the Home Office Reintegration Delivery Manager and colleagues within his own team;
(2) International Returns and Reintegration Assistance (IRARA) had supported 22 Vietnamese returnees in the period February 2023 to March 2025. Of these, 11 were supported to obtain new citizen ID cards;
(3) IRARA had confirmed that some of these 11 individuals held no other identity documents, other than ETDs issued by the Vietnamese authorities, for their return;
(4) Pacific Links Foundation replaced IRARA earlier this year and since April 2025 had been providing reintegration support. It had provided returnees, including one who was in the process of renewing his citizen ID card based solely on his ETD, having no other identity documents;
(5) In the time available, it had not been possible to provide precise details, but it could be said with a high degree of confidence that there was a considerable range of periods that returnees had been outside of Vietnam, including those who had arrived more recently, but also others who had arrived much longer ago;
(6) The Ministry of Public Security undertake checks against all official records in Vietnam for all cases. It will only issue an ETD once it has confirmed an individual’s identity and Vietnamese nationality;
(7) The Vietnamese Ministry of Public Security issued 143 ETDs in the period 1 January 2025 to 31 May 2025 following applications made by the Home Office. ETDs were issued every month.
26. In oral evidence Mr Parnell’s said paragraph 13 of his first witness statement had said that IRARA had confirmed that they were unaware of any returnees who had been able to renew their Citizen ID Cards.
27. Mr Parnell said that if the Ministry of Public Authority was not able to verify a particular individual as being Vietnamese then no ETD would be granted.
28. Mr Parnell also provided his estimates in respect of percentages of how many ETDs had been successful. He said he was not able to give an accurate answer in view of the urgency with which he provided the recent written evidence. We note that Mr Parnell was responding 4 days later to matters which were first raised in the Appellant’s skeleton argument dated 2 June 2025 and so there was time pressure to respond in view of the imminent hearing before us. Mr Parnell said that even without being able to give a more accurate percentage, he was confident that it was a high percentage of ETDs which were successful.
29. Mr Parnell said in response to a question from the Panel that he was not able to say for certain that an ETD will be obtained for this Appellant, but that the date-range for how long other applicants had been outside of Vietnam were similar to this Appellant. Mr Parnell explained that if no ETD can be obtained then there can be no return of that person.
30. We reserved our decision.
31. We are grateful to both counsel for their helpful written and oral submissions.

Analysis and Consideration
32. We assess Dr Tran’s evidence against the background of Mr Skinner stating that he was not challenging her expertise.
33. We found Dr Tran as someone who was trying to assist the Upper Tribunal with that expertise. We conclude however that we are unable to provide much weight to Dr Tran’s written and oral evidence. We come to this view about Dr Tran’s evidence for the following main reasons:
(1) She has little knowledge of and did not refer to the arrangements which the Home Office have with the Vietnamese Embassy. This therefore affects whether Dr Tran knew of all of the options in redocumenting the Appellant;
(2) She did not refer in her first report to the changes in the law for obtaining Citizen Identification Cards yet had professed expertise in such matters. This therefore undermines her expertise and awareness of latest matters;
(3) She has no real experience of the relatively large numbers of ETDs which have been issued to Vietnamese persons who have had no other identity documents or family to assist them. This included 143 ETDs having been issued between January 2025 to May 2025;
(4) It is perhaps not surprising that Dr Tran would not have direct knowledge of the cooperation that takes place at a higher level between the UK Home Office and its counterpart in Vietnam to assist in the removal of persons from the UK. However, the fact that Dr Tran was not aware of this, significantly reduces the reliability of her report about the options of redocumentation.
34. We prefer the evidence of Mr Matthew Parnell. The reasons that we prefer his evidence are as follows.
(1) He provided the latest evidence and direct evidence of ETDs;
(2) Much of this evidence was first hand experience of what occurs amongst the Home Office and the equivalent in Vietnam and at the Vietnamese Embassy. Even where the evidence was not first hand, the evidence was from Mr Parnell’s colleagues within the Home Office who have also set out their experience;
(3) It is clear that there have been returns to Vietnam of persons with ETDs; and
(4) Dr Tran has not dealt with what she called “Home Office” cases, by which we understand her to mean removal cases. Instead, we have direct evidence from the Home Office in the form of Mr Parnell’s written and oral evidence and which we accept as being accurate and complete.
35. We conclude that the evidence is clear that a Citizenship Identification Card is required to obtain essential services in Vietnam such as health care, or to open a bank account and to rent or a buy a home. We conclude that the wider documentation which can now be used to obtain that Citizenship Identification Card includes an ETD. Therefore, if as we accept, the Appellant can obtain an ETD, he will not be undocumented and he will be able to obtain a Citizenship Identification Card. That will enable him to obtain all the services that other nationals of Vietnam would be entitled to.
36. In coming to this decision, we accept the evidence of Mr Parnell and his ‘confidence’ he attains from the recent statistics (which we accept are accurate) that more than 50% of those who have been granted ETDs had no other ID documents and that the date ranges of the applicants included those who have been outside of the UK for as long a period as this Appellant claims he has been outside of the UK. Mr Parnell’s evidence was directly sourced from his colleagues and from first-hand work with the Vietnamese Embassy and authorities. There is no reason not to accept that evidence.
37. We also take into account that Mr Parnall was measured in his evidence and said he was not suggesting that it was ‘certain’ that the Appellant would be granted an ETD by the Vietnamese Embassy because such a decision is for the Vietnamese Embassy.

Conclusion
38. We return to the issues as highlighted at the outset, particularly as noted by the Appellant:
“Does the evidence establish that the Appellant would not be able to obtain relevant Vietnamese identity documents within a reasonable period of his return to Vietnam?
If so, would this result in the Appellant encountering very significant obstacles to integration (and/or ‘insurmountable obstacles’ to his family life continuing outside the UK)?”
39. On the balance of probabilities, we conclude that the Appellant has not established that he would not be able to obtain relevant Vietnamese documents within a reasonable period of time of his return to Vietnam. He will be able to do so via the ETD process and to which we have referred above.
40. As we understood Mr Allison’s written and oral submissions, he agreed it would be unnecessary for us to consider whether the Appellant will encounter very significant obstacles to integration and/or insurmountable obstacles to his family life continuing outside the UK if we had concluded that the Appellant could be redocumented. Therefore, because we have concluded that the Appellant has not satisfied us that he will not be redocumented within a reasonable time, then it is not necessary for us to consider whether he will face very significant obstacles to integration and/or insurmountable obstacles to his family life continuing outside of the UK.
41. In any event, there is simply no basis upon which we could have found that the Appellant, once re-documented, could show that there are insurmountable obstacles to his reintegration, or the continuation of his family life in Vietnam. The Appellant’s private and family life are to be given little weight, having been established while he has been in the UK without lawful leave. Although not specifically advanced before us, we note the length of time that the Appellant claims to have been in the UK, but that does not if itself enable us to come to a different decision either, noting the long periods without lawful leave.
42. Accordingly, the Appellant’s appeal based on human rights fails.
43. For added clarity we record that Mr Skinner acknowledged in his skeleton argument that if no Emergency Travel Document (ETD) could be obtained for the Appellant, then that would be a matter for a different type of application, but that is not before us and we are not deciding that theoretical issue in any event. In such circumstances Mr Skinner accepted that the Appellant would not be removed from the UK.

Notice of Decision
The Court of Appeal had remitted the matter to the Upper Tribunal for the decision to be remade.
We remake the decision.
We dismiss the Appellant’s appeal based on human rights grounds.
We do not make an anonymity order.

Abid Mahmood

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

29 July 2025