Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-004762

First-tier Tribunal No: HU/02136/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 17th of October 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE McWILLIAM

Between

UMAR OMOTOLA BUSAIRI
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr M Banks, Counsel, instructed by Barnes, Harrild & Dyer Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr N Wain, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 23 September 2025

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant is a national of Nigeria whose date of birth is 10 June 2004. The Secretary of State made a deportation order on 11 November 2023, following the appealable decision of 6 November 2023 to refuse his human rights claim. The Appellant’s appeal was dismissed by the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Fox). Upper Tribunal Judge Norton-Taylor granted the Appellant permission to appeal.
2. I gave an ex-tempore judgement at the hearing.
3. There are a number of grounds, however, it is not necessary for me to engage with all of them. I find that ground 3 has been made out. The Appellant relied on a social worker’s report. The judge did not accept this evidence. He found that it was of little probative value. The reasons for this are set out by the judge at length in his decision (see [36] – [50]). The Secretary of State did not at any point in the proceedings challenge this evidence. It is accepted by Mr Wain that the Presenting Officer did not raise the report in submissions.
4. I have taken on board Mr Wain’s submission. His primary submission was that the judge did not make a credibility finding in respect of the evidence of the social worker and therefore the case can be distinguished from TUI UK Ltd v Griffiths [2023] UKSC 48. Mr Wain said that the judge was entitled to make findings about the evidence with reference to the First-tier Tribunal Practice Direction on experts. I note [43] of TUI per Lord Hodge, “ I see no rational basis for confining the rule to such cases or those analogous categories, such as allegations of bad faith or aspersions against a witness’s character..”. There is no identifiable exception in this case (see [61] –[69] of Tui).
5. While it is a matter for the judge what to make of the report of an expert in the context of an adversarial system proceedings, fairness demands that an appellant is given an opportunity to make comments on the evidence. The judge found that the Appellant and his parents were not credible. Whilst the credibility of the expert was not in dispute the Appellant’s evidence and that of his family was capable of being supported by the evidence of the social worker both on the issues of very significant obstacles and very compelling circumstances.
6. I find that there is a procedural irregularity and the decision of the judge is set aside. I agree with the parties that, bearing in mind the nature of the error is one of procedural fairness, the appeal should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard de novo.

Joanna McWilliam

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

2 October 2025