Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM
CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-005723

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/59642/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On the 11 August 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LANE
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BURNS

Between

SNN
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Appellant
And

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Representation
For the Appellant: In person
For the Respondent: Ms Arif, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Birmingham Civil Justice Centre on 4 August 2025
Decision and Reasons

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.

Introduction
1. The Appellant is a national of Zimbabwe. She made her claim for asylum on 10 January 2019. Her claim was refused by the Respondent on 20 October 2023. The Appellant’s appeal was refused by First-tier Tribunal (“FtT”) Judge Codd (“the Judge”) for reasons set out in a decision promulgated on 17 October 2024.
2. The Respondent was granted permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal by FtT Judge Boyes on 14 December 2024. The appeal was heard by Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Merrigan on 12 May 2025 and for reasons set out in an ‘error of law’ decision issued on 27 May 2025, he set aside paragraphs [33] – [39] of the decision of the FtT and preserved the findings in [17] to [31] of that decision.
3. DUTJ Merrigan found that there was a material error of law both in failing to identify a destination to which the Appellant could internally relocate given the Judge’s findings at [29] to [32]; and a failure to set out why it would not be unduly harsh for the Appellant to return to Zimbabwe given the Judge’s findings at [20] to [23] and [26] to [31].
4. DUTJ Merrigan directed that
“within 28 days of this decision being received, the parties will file and serve written submissions as to (a) whether the appellant could internally relocate; and (b) whether it would be unduly harsh for the appellant to return to Zimbabwe”.
5. Written submissions pursuant to the Directions were filed by the Appellant on 18 June 2025. The Respondent did not comply with Directions nor made an application to extend time.
6. It is in that context that the appeal was listed for hearing before us to remake the decision in the appeal.
The Issue to be determined
7. The single issue to be determined is whether the Appellant could internally relocate within Zimbabwe.
8. The preserved findings which have not been challenged by the Respondent are that the Appellant cannot return to Bulawayo [29] and cannot return to the capital Harare [31]. The issue therefore is whether there is anywhere in Zimbabwe where the Appellant could relocate without a real risk of persecution.
The Re-Hearing of the Appeal
9. Ms Arif confirmed that the Respondent had not prepared a skeleton argument. She submitted that having considered the preserved findings she would concede that the Appellant would be at risk on return to Zimbabwe. Accordingly, she submitted that the appeal should be allowed.
10. Therefore, we indicated to the Appellant that she had succeeded in her appeal and that a written decision would follow.
Remaking the Decision
11. The Appellant has established that she is a member of a particular social group because she is a lesbian. She has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of her membership of the particular social group. She cannot return to Bulawayo where her family resides. She is unable to relocate to Harare (from where her traffickers operated). Given that she would wish to live as an openly gay woman she would be unable to relocate to any other area of Zimbabwe without a real risk of persecution.
12. We re-make the decision by allowing the appeal against the refusal of the Protection claim made by the Respondent on 20 October 2023.

Notice of Decision
13. We have remade the decision. The Appellant’s appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State dated 20 October 2023 is allowed on asylum and human rights (Article 3 ECHR) grounds.

C Burns
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Burns

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

4 August 2025