UI-2024-001699

  • Case title:  
  • Appellant name:
  • Status of case: Unreported
  • Hearing date:
  • Promulgation date:
  • Publication date:
  • Last updated on:
  • Country:
  • Judges:

The decision



IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-001699

First-tier Tribunal Nos: PA/51339/2022
IA/03719/2022

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 17 March 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KHAN

Between

JL
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr E Wilford, Counsel instructed by KBP Law LLP
For the Respondent: Ms A Ahmed, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 5 March 2025

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. On 26 February 2024, the First Tier Tribunal (‘FtT’) dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the respondent’s refusal to grant his asylum and human rights claim. The appellant appealed with permission against the decision of the FtT to the Upper Tribunal on the basis that the judge’s decision involved the making of an error of law.
2. At a statutory appeal hearing held on 27 September 2024 before Upper Tribunal Judge Rintoul, both parties agreed that the decision of the FtT involved the making of an error of law for the reasons set out in the grounds of appeal (which are not repeated here) and that the judge had acted unfairly by taking a number of points against the appellant, rendering the findings of fact as to the risk facing the appellant unsustainable.
3. In a decision dated 19 January 2025, UTJ Rintoul allowed the appellant’s appeal, set aside the FtT judgment, and directed that the case should be remade in the Upper Tribunal with no preserved findings, stating at [3] that the errors were not so serious that it would be appropriate to remit the decision to the FtT.
4. At the remaking hearing today, I heard preliminary submissions from both parties regarding whether it was appropriate for the case to be retained in the Upper Tribunal rather than being remitted to the FtT for a fresh hearing. It was submitted that the nature of the error of law involved unfairness by the FtT judge, and as a result extensive fact-finding would be required as there were no preserved findings and the appellant’s credibility was in issue. The loss of the two-tier decision-making process if the decision is retained in the Upper Tribunal was also stressed. All of these factors, taken together with the overriding objective suggested that the case should properly have been remitted to the FtT for a fresh hearing, rather than being retained.
5. Having carefully considered the submissions and the principles set out in AEB v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWCA Civ 1512 as applied in Sufia Begum v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] UKUT 46 (IAC), I agree that notwithstanding the earlier decision to retain the hearing, the more appropriate course would have been to remit the case to the FtT, Taylor House to be heard by any judge other than First-Tier Judges’ Khurram and Hussain. I therefore remit the case to the FtT.
6. I should add that regardless of this step, it was unlikely that the appeal would have been remade in the Upper Tribunal today in any event. This is because there are a number of evidential matters outstanding that were raised by both parties which in all fairness would have necessitated an adjournment to allow further time for the full production of all relevant evidence to be placed before the Upper Tribunal if it were to retain the appeal. However, as this case will now be remitted, the FtT is invited to list a case management hearing on the first available date, for directions to the parties to be agreed, including consideration of costs.
Notice of Decision
7. The appeal be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal, Taylor House, for a fresh hearing to be heard before any judge other than First-tier Judges’ Khurram and Hussain.
8. No Findings of fact from the previous determinations to be preserved.
9. The First-tier Tribunal to list a Case Management Hearing on the first available date, for directions to the parties to be agreed and set, including consideration of costs.

K.A.Khan
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

05 March 2025