Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-005756

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/60733/2023
LP/08391/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

9th December 2025

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE FROOM

Between

AK
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr R Solomon, Counsel, instructed by Perera & Co, Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms H Gilmour, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 5 December 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant and any member of her family 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 or any member of her family. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. In a decision, dated 17 April 2025, I set aside the Decision and Reasons of the First-tier Tribunal insofar as it had dismissed the appellant’s appeal on human rights grounds (Article 8), but upheld it insofar as it had dismissed the appellant’s protection claim. I ordered that the appellant’s human rights (Article 8) appeal should be re-heard in the Upper Tribunal. This is the remaking decision.
2. The First-tier Tribunal made an anonymity order and I have continued the order in view of the fact this appeal concerns international protection issues.
The factual background
3. The appellant is a citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo (“DRC”) who arrived in the United Kingdom in 2017, aged 16. Her mother claimed asylum on behalf of herself, the appellant and two other siblings. The appellant’s older sibling has been recognised as a refugee. Since the error of law hearing in April, the respondent has granted limited leave to remain to the appellant’s mother and younger sibling on the grounds of family life.
4. In the decision which is under appeal, dated 2 November 2023, the respondent noted the appellant did not have a partner or children and she did not meet the requirements of paragraph 276ADE(1) of the Immigration Rules on private life grounds. Nor had she raised any exceptional compassionate grounds for granting discretionary leave.
5. In my decision on error of law, I noted as follows:
“18. As said, there was no issue between the parties that the appellant was sexually and physically abused while living in the DRC and that she came to the United Kingdom at the age of 16. The protection claim was rejected because the judge did not accept there was a current risk from the appellant’s former abusers. However, no adverse finding was made with respect to her subjective fear. The judge also accepted the appellant has a strong bond with her mother and sisters and she would be returning to the DRC alone. There was no evidence of family members or friends she could rely on in the DRC.
19. The judge concludes there are no additional factors that take the appellant’s relationship with her mother and sisters beyond that of a normal family life. In his assessment, the judge emphasises what might be regarded as the positives and notes the appellant has language skills and knowledge of cultural and societal norms, having lived her formative years in the DRC. She also had the benefit of the education she had undertaken in the United Kingdom and her ability in the English language, which would likely assist her to find employment in the DRC. He also notes she could receive a payment from the respondent if she returned.
20. What is strikingly absent from the judge’s assessment is any recognition of the appellant’s vulnerability and the impact her past experiences have had on her. To be fair, the medical evidence uploaded by the appellant’s solicitors is sparse. Her GP records refer to her being the victim of rape and also domestic violence, although this is attributed to her mother and grandmother. The notes do at least show that she had been prescribed Sertraline since February 2024, eight months before the hearing. There was no psychiatric report.
21. The appellant’s evidence set out in her witness statement does not appear to have been challenged or rejected. The appellant explains the impact on her of the abuse she suffered at [5], [7], [8], [9] and [11]. She describes her depression, flashbacks and suicidal thoughts. At [10] she describes the terror she felt at the unexpected encounter with her uncle. She describes ongoing mental health problems after her arrival in the United Kingdom at [15], including a suicide attempt. In addressing the suggestion she could relocate internally to avoid further persecution, the appellant states at [21] that she cannot erase the memories of trauma and she would find it very difficult to cope. She continues to feel suicidal. At [22] she contrasts her situation in the United Kingdom where she feels safe and surrounded by women. At [24] she states that her mental health has deteriorated and she cannot sleep. She needs medication. Her GP and Talking Therapies have supported her.”
Remaking the decision
6. The Appellant’s solicitors have filed a bundle of evidence updating the position. In light of the way the hearing progressed, it is unnecessary to set this out in any detail. It is sufficient to say that the Appellant is still unwell and there is evidence that she experiences suicidal ideation, with a reported suicide attempt in June 2025. She is being supported by Body and Soul, a charity which provides services to young people who are suicidal. She has also been referred to Talking Therapy. She remains on anti-depressants. She also continues to live with her mother and younger sister and the witness statements confirm the importance to the Appellant’s mental stability of being allowed to remain living with her family in the United Kingdom.
7. Ms Gilmour stated that, under these circumstances, the Respondent conceded the Article 8 appeal and she confirmed the Appellant would be granted limited leave to remain in line with her family.
8. The concession made by the Respondent appears appropriate and, therefore, I allow the Appellant’s appeal on Article 8 grounds.
Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal, dismissing the appellant’s appeal on protection grounds, did not involve the making of an error of law and shall stand.
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal, dismissing the appellant’s appeal on human rights (Article 8) grounds, did involve the making of an error of law and is set aside.
The appellant’s human rights (Article 8 only) appeal is allowed.

Signed
N Froom

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

Dated 5 December 2025