Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-000401

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/50159/2023 (amended pursuant to Rule 42)

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On the 7 April 2025

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BOWLER

Between

M H
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr M. Mahbulul Alam of Legit Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr S. Walker, senior presenting officer

Heard at Field House on 30 August 2024

This has been a remote hearing. The form of remote hearing was V (video). A face to face hearing was not required in the circumstances because the parties were represented, no evidence would be heard and all of the issues could be determined in a remote hearing.

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the Appellant is granted anonymity.

No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the appellant, likely to lead members of the public to identify the appellant. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh. He has appealed the Respondent’s decision dated 29 December 2022 to refuse his claim for protection.
2. First-tier Tribunal Judge Browne (“the Judge”) dismissed the appeal in a decision dated 4 December 2023 (“the Decision”).
3. Permission to appeal was granted by Judge Blundell in a decision dated 6 March 2024 in which it was decided that the decision arguably contained one or more errors of law in that the findings were expressed with insufficient clarity to enable the Appellant to understand the basis on which he lost.
The hearing before me
4. At the hearing Mr Walker conceded that the reasons in the Decision were inadequate. Much of the Decision was written in note form and it was difficult to understand. Both Mr Walker and Mr Mahbulul Alam submitted that the lack of clarity was so pervasive that the Decision needs to be set aside entirely and the appeal reheard. Mr Mahbulul Alam asked that the appeal be remitted to the First-tier in these circumstances.
My decision
5. Given the concession by Mr Walker I gave the parties my decision at the hearing that the Decision contained one or more material errors of law in that the reasons are inadequate for the Appellant to understand the basis on which he lost his appeal. Although there are some more lucid passages, many lack punctuation or are in note form such that the reader struggles to follow what is being said. To take but one example in para 49 of the Decision, the Judge writes:
“In all this time the appellant is still in good communication with his family, he is able to obtain information from Bangladesh, his family have not been harmed and as time has gone on. Claimed injuries of broken arm and severe head injuries from a DR in a health complex 27/02/2000 was evidence that was before the last Tribunal and that some people had come to occupy his land.”
6. The House of Lords in the case of South Bucks District Council and another v Porter (FC) [2004] UKHL 33 said (at paragraph 36):
“The reasons for a decision must be intelligible and they must be adequate. They must enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the “principal important controversial issues”, disclosing how any issue of law or fact was resolved.”
7. That threshold has not been met by the Decision.
8. I have considered the principles set out in Begum (Remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 00046 (IAC). In this case a full rehearing of a claim for protection is required. In such circumstances, I have concluded that the case should be remitted for a fresh hearing in the First-tier Tribunal.
9. The Appellant should be aware that this decision does not mean that the next tribunal will allow the appeal. His case will be heard afresh and may be allowed or dismissed by the First-tier Tribunal.
Notice of Decision
10. The Decision contained one or more material errors of law. The decision of Judge Browne is set aside. No findings are preserved.
11. The case is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a rehearing of the appeal. Judge Browne is excluded.

Tracey Bowler
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

04/09/2024