UI-2024-005479

  • 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-2024-005479


First-tier Tribunal No: PA/65498/2023
LP/07077/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

18th July 2025.

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RUDDICK
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WILSON

Between

S S
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Joseph (Counsel)
For the Respondent: Ms Simbi (Senior Home Office Presenting Officer)

Heard at Cardiff Civil Justice Centre on 11 June 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

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
1. The Appellant appeals against the decision of a First-tier Tribunal Judge (‘the Judge’) promulgated on 10 October 2024 dismissing his appeal against the Respondent’s refusal of his claim for international protection.
2. Permission to appeal was granted by the First-tier Tribunal in a decision dated 29 November 2024. The grounds upon which permission was granted include that the Judge’s decision to refuse the Appellant’s adjournment application, made at the First-tier Tribunal hearing, was arguably unfair.
3. Ms Simbi conceded that the Judge’s decision to refuse the adjournment application resulted in procedural unfairness and as a result the First-tier Tribunal had materially erred in law.
4. We accept that Ms Simbi’s concession was well made and that the Judge’s decision involves a material error of law. In particular, the change in the Respondent’s position on the morning of the First-tier Tribunal hearing, challenging factual elements of the Appellant’s account which had previously been unchallenged, deprived the Appellant of the opportunity to consider the Respondent’s case in advance of the hearing and respond in a considered manner. This deprived the Appellant of his right to a fair hearing [Nwaigwe (adjournment: fairness) [2014] UKUT 00418 (IAC)].
5. We have considered Begum (Remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 46 (IAC) and the relevant Practice Direction and Practice Statement. In our judgment, as the Appellant was deprived of a fair hearing before the First-tier Tribunal and given that a full fact-finding exercise will be required, it is appropriate for the case to be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal. Indeed, the parties agreed that this appeal should be remitted to the First tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing with no preserved findings of fact.
Notice of Decision
6. The First-tier Tribunal has materially erred in law. The decision is set aside.
7. The appeal shall be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal sitting at Manchester to be heard de novo by a different judge.


G Wilson

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber


14 July 2025