Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-005266

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/56155/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 2 July 2025

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PICKERING

Between

RS
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Eaton, of counsel
For the Respondent: Mr J Thompson, a Senior Home Office Presenting Officer.

Heard at Phoenix House (Bradford) on 9 May 2025

Anonymity
Unless and until a tribunal or court directs otherwise, the appellant as she was before the First-tier Tribunal is granted anonymity. No report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify him, any of his witnesses or any member of his family. This direction applies to, amongst others, both the appellant and the respondent. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to contempt of court proceedings

DECISION AND REASONS
1. I shall refer to the parties as they were before the First-tier Tribunal when the appeal.
2. The respondent appeals, with permission, the decision of Judge of First-tier Tribunal Suffield Thompson (‘the Judge’) who allowed the appeal against the respondent’s decision to refuse the appellant’s claim for asylum in a decision dated 22 August 2023.
Background
3. By way of brief background, the appellant is a national of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). She is a particularly vulnerable woman who fears return on the basis of her sexuality as a bisexual woman or as a victim of trafficking (VOT).
4. The appellant also suffers from serious mental health issues.
Grounds
5. The respondent relies on one ground, that the Judge did not give sufficient reasons for the findings made about the appellant’s sexuality.
6. First-tier Tribunal Judge Haria granted permission to appeal in the following terms:
It is arguable that the Judge erred as asserted. Although I note that the findings as to risk of re- trafficking have not been challenged and therefore any error as to the Appellant’s sexuality may not be material to the outcome, I grant permission as it arguable that the error if made out may be found to have infected the other findings in the decision
7. The appellant provided a Rule 24 inviting the Tribunal to uphold the Judge’s decision.
Discussion and findings
8. I expressed my preliminary view to Mr Thompson and he confirmed that he did not have instructions to concede the appeal, however, he recognised the difficulties with the grounds.
9. As I explained to the parties a the hearing, the determination does not contain a material error of law. I reached this conclusion for the following reasons.
10. The Judge directs themselves correctly to Devaseelan (Second Appeals - ECHR - Extra-Territorial Effect) Sri Lanka * [2002] UKIAT 00702 at §20 of their determination. In doing so the Judge expressly reminds themselves of why the previous Judge reached a negative finding about the appellant’s sexuality.
11. The Judge then goes on to explain why they have come to a different conclusion about the appellant’s sexuality [§36-41] than the previous Judge. Put another way the Judge has given reasons. The reasons include:
a. The appellant now being accepted as a VOT;
b. The diagnosis the appellant’s mental health challenges;
c. Self direction to guidance and case law.
12. Reading the determination as a whole it is clear to the informed reader why the Judge concluded that the appellant had previously been in a relationship with women and could in the future [§41]. The Judge has therefore given sufficient and intelligible reasons for departing from the previous Judge’s findings. The grounds therefore do not disclose a material error of law.
13. Additionally the grounds do not seek to challenge the findings made that the appellant is a at real risk of being re-trafficked. With respect to the observations of Judge granting permission the decision is compartmentalised into freestanding heads of claim.
Notice of Decision
14. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve the making of an error on a point of law.
15. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal stands.

RA Pickering
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

1 July 2025