Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2024-003355
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/01091/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

9th August 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LODATO

Between

MK
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Joseph, counsel
For the Respondent: Ms Rushforth, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Cardiff Civil Justice Centre on 22 July 2026

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
Introduction
1. I have decided to maintain the anonymity order originally made in these proceedings by the First-tier Tribunal (‘the FtT’) because the underlying claim involves international protection issues in that MK states that she fears persecution or serious harm on return to South Korea. The appellant also suffers with serious mental health conditions. In reaching this decision, I am mindful of the fundamental principle of open justice, but I am satisfied, taking MK’s case at its highest for these purposes, that the potential risks outweigh the interests of the public to know her identity.
2. This decision should be read in conjunction with my previous decision to allow the Secretary of State’s appeal against the decision of the FtT. The matter came back before me to remake the underlying appeal decision.
Background
3. The appellant, a national of South Korea, travelled to the UK with her parents when she was 12-years-old. She was taken into care by social services when she was 15-years-old due to concerns for her safety within the family home. She made a protection and human rights claim on 29 October 2020. She was still 15 at the time. In a decision dated 16 June 2022, when she had recently turned 17, the claim was refused but she was granted temporary leave as an unaccompanied asylum-seeking child until the age of 17 and a half.
Appeal to the Upper Tribunal
4. At the remaking hearing, Ms Rushforth conceded that the appeal should be allowed on Article 8 human rights grounds due to the strength of the appellant’s case, as it now stands, that she would encounter very significant obstacles to integration. In light of the respondent’s position on the Article 8 ground of appeal, Mr Joseph did not pursue the international protection or Article 3 human rights grounds of appeal and invited me to dismiss them.
Discussion
5. I am satisfied that the Secretary of State’s concession of the appeal on Article 8 private life grounds is well-judged and was the result of a sensible reappraisal of the respondent’s case upon consideration of the powerful fresh evidence from Ms Evans, the Team Manager for Newport City Council Children’s Services and a letter from Ms Davies, a treating mental health professional. Ms Evans report, in particular, in setting out detailed background of the Local Authority’s involvement with the appellant since she was removed from the care of her parents. She described how the appellant’s mental health had deteriorated to a very significant degree in recent years resulting in an extended period in which she was sectioned under the Mental Health Acts. In view of these serious mental health concerns and the limited network of support which would be available to her on return to South Korea, I too, like the Secretary of State, am satisfied that the appellant would encounter very significant obstacles to integration on return and that the refusal decision would amount to a disproportionate interference with her Article 8 private life rights.
6. I agree with the appellant’s representative that the international protection and Article 3 grounds of appeal should be dismissed. It was always an extravagant proposition to suggest that the appellant would be persecuted or subjected to serious harm in a country such as South Korea. It was never explained what kind of harm was feared or the source from which it would come.

Notice of Decision
The appeal is allowed on Article 8 private life grounds. The international protection and Article 3 human rights grounds are dismissed.

Paul Lodato

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

29 July 2026