UI-2024-004604

  • 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-2024-004604

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/65079/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

19th June 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE OWENS
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE L MURRAY

Between

KMA
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Joseph, Counsel
For the Respondent: Miss Rushforth, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Cardiff Civil Justice Centre on 16 May 2025

DECISION AND REASONS


Introduction
1. The Appellant is a national of Palestine previously residing in the Lebanon and registered with UNWRA there. His appeal against the Respondent’s decision to refuse his claim to be in need of international protection was dismissed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Boyes in a decision promulgated on 7 August 2024.
2. Permission to appeal was granted on all grounds by First-tier Tribunal Judge Haria on 2 January 2024.
3. The matter came before us to determine whether the First-tier Tribunal Judge (FTTJ) had erred in law, and if so whether any such error was material such that the decision should be set aside.
The hearing
4. The Appellant argued in the grounds of appeal to the Upper Tribunal that the FTTJ had erred in his conclusion that statelessness was not pursued at the hearing before him and that the issue was raised in the Appellant’s Appeal Skeleton Argument. Permission to appeal was granted on the grounds that if the assertion in the grounds was correct, it was arguable that the Judge erred in failing to make a determination on the issue of statelessness.
5. At the hearing before us Mr Joseph, who had been the Appellant’s representative at the hearing before the FTT, conceded that the position set out by the Respondent in the Rule 24 notice, namely that counsel had not pursued the issue of statelessness at the hearing, was correct. He agreed that the FTTJ’s record at paragraph 23 of the decision that statelessness was not pursued was an accurate record of the concession made at the hearing and consequently he could not rely on arguments made in the grounds of appeal. He asked us to dismiss the appeal.
Conclusions – Error of Law
6. It follows from Mr Joseph’s concession that the issue of non-return and statelessness were not pursued at the hearing that the FTTJ addressed all of the principle controversial issues in the appeal and there is no error of law in the decision, no other grounds having been advanced.
Notice of Decision
The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve the making of a material error of law and we do not set it aside.

L Murray

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

16 June 2025