Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-005801
UI-2024-005802
UI-2024-005990
UI-2024-005991

First-tier Tribunal No: HU/60070/2023
HU/60071/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

30th October 2025

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HILLS

Between

GB and PB
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Nicholson, instructed by Ashton Ross Law
For the Respondent: Ms Rushforth, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 9 October 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellants are granted anonymity.

No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the appellants, likely to lead members of the public to identify the appellants. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS

Background

1. The appellants are a father (GB) and his 15 year old son (PB). They are citizens of Turkey who appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (FtT) on human rights grounds against the respondent’s decision to refuse their application for leave to remain.

2. The appellants seek to remain on Article 8 grounds on the basis of their private life, namely that there would be very significant obstacles to their integration upon return to Turkey. They also argue that their circumstances mean a refusal would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences.

3. The FtT Judge (FtTJ) dismissed the appeal in a decision dated 16 October 2024. The appellants appeal that decision to the Upper Tribunal.

Grounds of appeal

4. Four grounds of appeal were advanced, which I summarise briefly.

5. Ground 1 – The FtTJ’s determination is flawed by material factual errors. The appellants raise two errors, namely the reference at [40] to PB having seen the Counselling Psychologist Dr Bayraktar in Turkey before he came to the UK, and at [31] to GB having lived as a single parent in Turkey for three years.

6. Ground 2 – The FtTJ erred in law in his representation and consideration of the evidence relied upon by the appellants. The FtTJ accepted evidence about PB’s mental health at [39] and at [40] summarised the Psychologist’s conclusions. The appellants disagree with the summary as a proper reflection of the evidence, and with the FtTJ’s acceptance of the respondent’s submissions at [41] in relation to PB’s resilience, without addressing the submissions made by the appellants in response. They argue the FtTJ did not sufficiently reflect the risks to PB of being returned to Turkey.

7. Ground 3 – The FtTJ erred in law in taking an irrelevant consideration into account in his consideration of PB’s best interests, and has failed to take a relevant consideration into account. The appellants argue that the FtTJ erred in concluding at [36] that PB’s best interests were served by being closer to his mother because there was unchallenged evidence before the FtTJ that PB’s mother was not interested in a relationship with him. Further, that he erred in finding that PB was not at a critical stage of his education.

8. Ground 4 – The FtTJ erred in law in failing to take account of all of the evidence upon which the appellants relied. The appellants argue that the FtTJ failed to take into account the evidence of a friend of GB which was provided and unchallenged, on the basis that there is no reference in the decision to the evidence.

Discussion and analysis

9. Mr Nicholson and Ms Rushforth addressed me on each of the grounds of appeal. The most persuasive of the issues raised are the treatment by the FtTJ of the Psychologist’s evidence under Ground 2 and whether PB was at a critical stage of his education under Ground 3.

10. The FtTJ noted at [35], correctly, that he needed to take into account as his primary consideration the best interests of the child PB in accordance with section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009.

11. The FtTJ found at [40] of his decision:

“[…] In summary, Dr Bayraktar concludes a return to Turkey may potentially cause emotional distress, and increase the possibility of anxiety and depression and disrupt his education/academic progress. This does not satisfy the threshold for mental health which would cause unduly harsh circumstances […]”

12. In relation to PB’s medical conditions, Ms Rushforth noted that the FtTJ set out the relevant parts of the diagnosis at [39] and submitted that the summary reached at [40] was reasonably open to the FtTJ based on the evidence. She argued that the weight to be given to the evidence was a matter for the FtTJ and said that this ground of appeal amounted to a mere disagreement with the decision.

13. Mr Nicholson submitted that the FtTJ’s approach was unfair because he did not recognise that what was at issue was not a mere possibility of PB suffering anxiety and depression on return, rather that he was already suffering from those conditions. The FtTJ was required, he argued, to assess the impact of a return to Turkey in the context of a deterioration of PB’s already fragile mental health. He noted that the Psychologist found, and the FtTJ accepted at [39], that the assessment indicated “severe symptoms of depression and anxiety” in PB.

14. I agree with Mr Nicholson. In finding that there was a possibility of anxiety and depression, the FtTJ appears to have misunderstood the medical evidence. Specifically, that PB is already suffering those conditions. In order to fairly consider if unduly harsh consequences would result for PB the FtTJ needed to consider the impact of return on the existing conditions. By not doing so, the FtTJ has erred.

15. At [41] the FtTJ notes the resilience which PB has shown and acknowledged that he is in the first year of studying for his GCSEs. The FtTJ found that as PB is only part-way through his first half term, in his view he was not at a critical stage of his education. That was a factor which the FtTJ weighed in finding that Article 8 would not be breached by PB’s return to Turkey.

16. Ms Rushforth submitted that the finding that PB was not at a critical stage of his education was open to the FtTJ to make. She argued that, even if a different judge might not have reached the same conclusion, it was one reasonably open to the FtTJ in this case and therefore did not amount to a material error of law as per Volpi v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464. Mr Nicholson submitted that this phase of a child’s education was plainly critical and that it was not a reasonable conclusion for the FtTJ. He said it is difficult to imagine a more critical stage of education than the one which PB is in.

17. I agree with Mr Nicholson. On a natural and reasonable understanding of this phase of secondary education in the UK, I do not see how being in the process of studying for his GCSEs could not be considered a critical stage for PB. That was a factor which the FtTJ should have taken into consideration when reaching his decision. The FtTJ has erred in this respect.

18. The FtTJ has failed to apply anxious scrutiny in this case. It is not possible to conclude that he has fairly considered the facts and evidence relating to the best interests of the child PB when reaching his decision. I find that the decision involved an error of law and the appeal is upheld. Given I have upheld the appeal on the basis of Ground 2 and 3, it is not necessary for me to make any findings in relation to the other grounds.

Notice of Decision

The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is vitiated as it involved an error of law. No findings are preserved.

Directions to the First-tier Tribunal

1. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal (Manchester);
2. The remitted appeal shall not be conducted by First-tier Tribunal Judge Ruck;
3. The anonymity direction is maintained.

N Hills

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

Dated: 20 October 2025