UI-2024-004504

• Status of case: Unreported
• Hearing date: 4 Jul 2025
• Promulgation date: 11 Jul 2025
• Publication date: 28 Jul 2025
• Last updated on: 28 Jul 2025

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-004504

First-tier Tribunal No: HU/00015/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
11th July 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LANDES

Between

ARDIAN CIDRI
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Decided at Field House on 4 July 2025


DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant was granted permission to appeal the decision of the First-Tier Tribunal promulgated on 19 August 2024 to dismiss his appeal against the respondent’s refusal of his human rights claim based on his relationship with his British citizen child.
2. The judge granted permission on the basis that if the First-Tier Tribunal Judge was referring to the legal concept of parental responsibility, then he was wrong in law in saying that the appellant did not have parental responsibility for his son, and that there were a lack of reasons for determining that there were no exceptional circumstances.
3. By a rule 24 response of 4 October 2024, the respondent did not oppose the appellant’s application for permission to appeal and accepted that the judge had erred in their approach on the issue of parental responsibility, which had not been in issue. The respondent agreed that the appeal should be remitted to the First-Tier Tribunal for a de-novo hearing.
4. By directions issued on 2 May 2025 (annexed below) , Upper Tribunal Judge Reeds explained that the grounds had merit as the respondent recognised and that she proposed to set aside the First-Tier Tribunal’s decision for error of law and remit the appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal for fresh consideration and that any representations to the contrary would be considered if received within 14 days of the date of these directions.
5. No representations to the contrary having been received and more than 14 days have passed, following Judge Reed’s directions, I set aside the decision for error of law and remit the appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal.
Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-Tier Tribunal is set aside for error of law and remitted to the First-Tier Tribunal (Taylor House) for fresh consideration by another judge, with no findings preserved.


A-R Landes

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber


4 July 2025

Annex


IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-004504

First-tier Tribunal No: HU/00015/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Issued:

2 May 2025

Before

Upper Tribunal Judge Reeds

ARDIAN CIDRI
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

DIRECTIONS

1. The Appellant’s human rights claim was refused by the Secretary of State on 22 June 2023. The Appellant appealed against that decision. His appeal was dismissed by Judge Abebrese of the First-tier Tribunal in a decision of 19 August 2024 following a hearing.
2. The Appellant sought permission to appeal the decision and First-tier Tribunal Judge Galloway granted permission to the Appellant on 10 September 2024 on all grounds.
3. The Respondent filed a Rule 24 response dated 4 October 2024 (uploaded on 8 October 2024). In that response it is stated that “the respondent does not oppose the appellant’s application for permission to appeal. It is accepted that the judge has erred in their approach on the issue of parental responsibility and that this was not an issue between the parties [15]. The issues in the RFRL was whether the appellant had provided sufficient evidence of his parental relationship with his son and whether there are exceptional circumstances. It is submitted that the issues of parental relationship and exceptional circumstances need to be determined therefore it is submitted that the appeal should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a de-novo hearing”.
4. Having considered the grounds of appeal, the grant of permission, and the rule 24 response in this case, the grounds have clear merit, as is recognised by the Secretary of State.
5. In the circumstances I propose to set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision for error of law and remit the appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal for fresh consideration as set out in the Rule 24 response.
6. Any representations to the contrary made on behalf of the parties will be considered if received within 14 days of the date of these directions.


Upper Tribunal Judge Reeds

Upper Tribunal Judge Reeds


22 April 2025