Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: UI-2024-005975
HU/60567/2023
LH/04210/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Determined without a hearing
On 15 July 2025
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 16 July 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE OWENS

Between

Adewale Shamsideen Shekoni
(ANONYMITY ORDER NOT MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant appeals with permission against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal Judge dated 27 August 2024 dismissing the appellant’s appeal against a decision to refuse his human rights claim.
2. The appellant is a citizen of Nigeria who made an application to remain in the UK on the basis of his long residence.
3. The judge dismissed the appeal. The grounds asserted that the judge misunderstood the appellant’s medical condition and the impact of that on him, failed to treat his as a vulnerable witness and did not take into account the impact of his health on his evidence.
4. On 30 December 2024 permission was granted by First-tier Tribunal Judge Barker on numerous grounds including that the hearing was unfair because the appellant’s appeal had been prepared by an individual who had at that time been struck off, on the basis the judge misunderstood the appellant’s medical condition and therefore failed to treat him as a vulnerable witness and consider the impact that might have on his evidence and that there were inconsistent findings and a lack of care in general.
5. On 2 February 2024, I issued directions indicating that my preliminary view is that the decision contained several errors of law sufficient to set aside the decision and remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing without holding an oral hearing at the Upper Tribunal. The parties were given the opportunity to object to this course of action.
6. The appellant responded to directions on 14 February 2025 consenting to the proposed course of action. On 27 February 2025 the respondent also indicated that the Secretary of State does not resist the course of action proposed in the directions.
7. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that both parties are in agreement that the decision contains a material error of law and that it is fair and in the interests of justice to determine the error of law decision without an oral hearing in accordance with rule 34 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008.
8. The decision is flawed by procedural unfairness and because the appellant was not treated as a vulnerable witness and no consideration was given to how that impacted on his evidence.
9. Given the extent of the findings needed and because the appeal was vitiated by unfairness, it is appropriate to remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal be heard de novo.
Notice of Decision
10. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error of law.
11. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside, and the findings of the First-tier Tribunal are set aside in their entirety.
12. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard de novo by a judge other than First-tier Tribunal Judge Cohen.

Signed Date: 15 July 2025

R J Owens
Upper Tribunal Judge Owens