Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-005896

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/59586/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision and Reasons Issued:
On the 07 April 2025

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RUTH

Between

AE
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Turner of Counsel, instructed by Imperium Solicitors.
For the Respondent: Ms Everett, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 28 March 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
Introduction
1. I have decided to make an anonymity order because the underlying claim involves international protection and trafficking issues. In reaching this decision, I am mindful of the fundamental principle of open justice, but am satisfied, taking the appellant’s case at its highest for these purposes, that the potential grave risks outweigh the rights of the public to know of her identity.
2. The appellant appeals with permission against the decision, dated 28 October 2024, of First-tier Tribunal Judge Sangha (‘the judge’) to dismiss the appeal on international protection and human rights grounds.
3. Both parties agreed that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of a material error of law, because the judge had failed to take into account a psychiatric report diagnosing the appellant with PTSD when he assessed her credibility and the risk factors set out in the key country guidance case of TD and AD (Trafficked women) CG [2016] UKUT 92 (IAC).
4. In my judgement, the parties were right so to agree. A psychiatric report prepared by a consultant psychiatrist on 30 September 2024 was uploaded to the MyHMCTS system by the appellant’s representatives, as Ms Everett pointed out, on 3 October 2024. The hearing took place on 9 October 2024 and the judge therefore had the report before him. That report concludes the appellant is suffering from PTSD and suggests this results in numbness, emotional blunting, detachment and being unresponsive.
5. From paragraph [11] the judge makes adverse findings of credibility against the appellant, including as a result of vagueness and inconsistencies in her evidence. In doing so the judge makes no reference to the psychiatric report and does not assess whether the clinical conclusions of the psychiatrist could have had any impact on the manner in which the appellant gave her evidence. Given the fundamental importance of the judge’s findings of fact, the failure to engage with the psychiatric report at all was a material error of law.
6. At paragraph [22] of the decision the judge assesses the risk factors set out in TD & AD. The third of seven risk factors identified in that country guidance case is the state of health of the individual, particularly her mental health. At paragraph [23] the judge finds against the appellant in the light of the risk factors, without taking into account the conclusions within the psychiatric report. That was a material error of law.
7. In the circumstances, the findings of fact and those in relation to risk cannot stand and the decision must be set aside.
8. The parties spoke as one in submitting that, since a full remaking of the decision is required, the only proper course of action is to remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing. I agree.
Notice of Decision
I find that the decision of Judge Sangha did contain material errors of law. I allow the appeal brought by the appellant and set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal.
I remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal, to any judge other than Judge Sangha, for it to make a fresh decision on all matters in dispute. None of the findings of Judge Sangha are preserved.

Evan Ruth

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
1 April 2025