Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-005737

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/59010/20243
LP/09430/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 3 March 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MCWILLIAM
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SEELHOFF

Between

AD
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms A Smith, Counsel instructed by South West London Law Centres
For the Respondent: Ms S Cunha, Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 18 February 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 is a citizen of Turkey and is a minor.
2. On 16 December 2024 the First-tier Tribunal granted permission to appeal against a decision of the Firs-Tier Tribunal dated 28 October 2024 refusing the Appellant’s appeal against the Respondent’s decision to refuse the Appellant’s asylum claim.
The Background
3. The basis of the Appellant’s claim is that he is an ethnic Kurd who has faced discrimination, exclusion and racism due to his ethnicity and because his parents are supporters of the People’s Democratic Party (HDP).
Findings of the First-tier
4. The First-tier Judge agreed with the Respondent that the Appellant was not in fact Kurdish, and that as a consequence it was not plausible that his family were HDP supporters and dismissed the appeal.
Grounds of Appeal
5. Permission was sought on five grounds but was granted on grounds 2 and 5 only.
6. Ground 2 argues that the Judge erred in failing to take into account the evidence of an expert Gareth Jenkins when considering evidence in the round. This was said to be an error because the expert had held that parts of the account were at least plausible which should have been taken into account.
7. Ground 5 argues that the Judge erred in not considering the Respondent’s policies and the evidence of social services as to reception arrangements for the Appellant as a minor returning to Turkey.
Rule 24 Response
8. In a response filed further to rule 24 the Respondent conceded;
“Ground 2 exposes a material error. It is accepted that whilst FTTJ Herlihy engaged with the country expert report, she failed to give reasons for rejecting their findings the Appellants account was plausible. This goes to risk on return.”
9. The Respondent argued that ground 5 was not made out but invited the tribunal to set the decision aside and remake it in the Upper Tribunal.
The Hearing
10. Ms Cunha was not the author of the Rule 24 response. We asked if she could explain the concession to us as it was not clear to us the basis on which it was made particularly as it was not apparent to us the extent to which the expert’s evidence would have been relevant to the determinative findings of the Judge. Ms Cunha was not able to assist us as to the basis of a concession with which she did not agree.
11. Ms Cunha did however acknowledge that it would not be fair to go behind the terms of the concession without giving the Appellant and his representatives advance notice of the decision which had not been done prior to the hearing. Ms Cunha also confirmed that the Respondent’s position as set out in the Rule 24 response is that the decision needs to be remade.
12. We invited submissions as to how we should dispose of the matter. Ms Smith said that in light of the concession that the credibility findings were unsound the appeal had to be reheard.
13. Whilst the basis of the concession made by the Respondent is not clear to us, we considered that we were bound as a matter of procedural fairness to accept the Respondent’s concession that the decision of the First-tier Judge was unsound. We considered disposal in light of Begum (Remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 46 (IAC). What is required is a complete remaking of the credibility findings and retaining the decision would deprive the Appellant of the benefit of the two stage process. In these circumstances we agree with the Appellant’s representatives that remittal is appropriate.
14. Both parties agreed that in light of the concession in respect of ground 2 it was not necessary to address ground 5.
Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of material errors on a point of law and is set aside with no findings preserved.
The remaking of the decision in the appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal at Taylor House, to be remade afresh and heard by any judge other than Judge Herlihy.

A. Seelhoff

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber