Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-005089
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/68252/2023
LP/08183/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 24th of April 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE O’CALLAGHAN
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE COLE

Between

AA
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Aziz, Solicitor, Lei Dat & Baig Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms Newton, Senior Presenting Officer.

Heard at Manchester on 20 April 2026

ANONYMITY ORDER

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. The appellant appeals a decision of the First-tier Tribunal refusing his international protection and human rights (article 3 ECHR) appeal. The decision was sent to the parties on 14 September 2024.

Anonymity Order

2. The First-tier Tribunal issued an anonymity order. We consider that at the present time the appellant’s private life rights protected by article 8 ECHR outweighs the public interest in knowing his identity in these proceedings, as protected by article 10 ECHR, consequent to him seeking international protection. In these circumstances, we conclude that the anonymity order should properly continue.

3. The order is detailed above.

Relevant Facts

4. The appellant is a national of Ethiopia. He is presently aged 28. Ethnically, he is Tigrayan.

5. He states that he became a member of the Tigray People's Liberation Front (‘TPLF’) whilst at university in 2014. He encouraged youths to participate in political discussions and activities. He also attended a demonstration at the university. He states that he was arrested by the authorities, questioned about his connections to the TPLF, and ill-treated. He was released after two weeks and warned against carrying out any further activities. He was also made to sign a document.

6. Following his release, he details that he continued his political activities but sought to hide his identity when undertaking them. He states that one of his university friends was arrested in February 2019. The appellant was aware that he was under surveillance and was fearful for his life. He ceased his activities and then left the country on 2 July 2019. He travelled to Europe and subsequently sought asylum in this country on 2 May 2021. He asserted a well-founded fear of persecution on the grounds of political opinion. The respondent refused the application for international protection by a decision dated 9 December 2023.

7. Following his arrival in the United Kingdom, the appellant details that he withdrew his support for the TPLF after they signed the Ethiopia–Tigray peace agreement (‘the Pretoria Agreement’) on 2 November 2022. Since then, he has attended anti-TPLF demonstrations and has been active on social media where he states that he had around 79,000 followers at one point, but the account has since been closed due to its political content against the Ethiopian government. He opened a second public account with around 1,000 followers. He criticises the Ethiopian government as well as the TPLF.

8. The appeal was heard by the First-tier Tribunal sitting in the Virtual Region on 13 September 2024. The decision was promulgated the next day.

Grounds of Appeal

9. The appellant advances three grounds of appeal:

i. The First-tier Tribunal failed to take account of relevant evidence.

ii. The First-tier Tribunal failed to take account of evidence provided by the appellant in interview.

iii. The First-tier Tribunal failed to take account of answers provide by the appellant in his second interview.

10. By a decision dated 2 November 2024, First-tier Tribunal Judge Mace granted permission to appeal on all grounds reasoning, inter alia:

“I find that the grounds disclose arguable errors of law in the Judge’s decision for the following reasons:

(i) Ground 1: it is arguable in paragraphs 14-17 that it is unclear whether the Judge made a finding that the appellant had carried out activities during his journey to the UK which would put him at risk on return.

(ii) Ground (ii): it is arguable in paragraphs 18 and 19 that the Judge has not considered relevant evidence

Ground (iii): it is arguable in paragraph 24 that the Judge has not considered relevant evidence.”

Discussion

11. Before this panel, the respondent conceded the appeal to the extent that she requested the decision of the First-tier Tribunal concerned with international protection and human rights (article 3 ECHR) be set aside in its entirety and the matter be remitted for a de novo hearing.

12. Ms Newton explained the respondent’s position as being founded upon an acceptance that the First-tier Tribunal failed to lawfully place into its assessment relevant evidence the appellant gave in his witness statement and the corrections he made to the interview record prior to the hearing. She accepted that such failings amounted to a material error of law.

13. Unsurprisingly, Mr Aziz agreed to this course of action.

14. Having considered the First-tier Tribunal decision, we acknowledge that effort was made to undertake a fair, lawful and holistic assessment. However, we accept there was a failure to consider the appellant’s evidence presented prior to the hearing. Such failure adversely infected the overall assessment of the appeal before the First-tier Tribunal and consequently the only proper course is to set aside the decision concerning international protection and human rights (article 3 ECHR) in its entirety.

15. We note that the appellant did not raise a separate human rights (article 8 ECHR) ground of challenge before this Tribunal.

Resumed Hearing

16. We observe the guidance in Begum (Remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 00046 (IAC). We consider the nature or extent of any judicial fact finding which is necessary in order for the decision in this appeal to be re-made is such that, having regard to the overriding objective in rule 2 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, it is appropriate to remit the case to the First-tier Tribunal.

17. There are no preserved findings of fact.

Notice of Decision

18. The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal sent to the parties on 14 September 2024 involved the making of a material error on an issue of law.

19. The decision is set aside in its entirety, save the finding as to the human rights (article 8 ECHR) appeal conveyed at paragraph 53 of the decision which is preserved.

36. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal sitting in Manchester.

37. An anonymity order is confirmed.

D O’Callaghan
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

20 April 2026