Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-000406

First-tier Tribunal Nos: PA/60122/2023
LP/06751/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

21st of May 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PERKINS
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HANBURY

Between

CM
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr W Ahmed, Counsel instructed by Thompson & Co Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr B Hulme, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 28 April 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant is granted anonymity. We make this order because the appellant seeks international protection.

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
(extempore)
1. In this appeal the appellant was represented by Mr W Ahmed, Counsel, instructed by Thompson & Co Solicitors who did not appear in the First-tier Tribunal, and Mr B Hulme, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer.
2. This is an appeal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing the appeal of the appellant against a decision of the Secretary of State on 27 October 2023 refusing her a protection claim.
3. The substantial ground of appeal is that the First-tier Tribunal erred by unfairly refusing to admit a bundle of documents provided at the very last minute at the hearing. We fully acknowledge the First-tier Judge was in a difficult position in trying to balance the need to proceed with litigation in reasonably expeditious way, the need to consider all that was material and the need to be fair to both parties. It is sometimes forgotten that the Secretary of State is a party to proceedings and is entitled to fairness as well. The judge decided not to admit the evidence. The Secretary of State has been able to consider the position and conceded today that the judge was wrong. We do not have to rule on that point because it has been dealt with by agreement.
4. Mr Ahmed urged us to go on and allow the appeal on Article 8 grounds. His brief point is that the evidence is credible and compelling and shows the child to be considered to be a British citizen and that effectively changes the whole case. That may very well be right but we are not prepared to admit that evidence and rule on it today without the Secretary of State having an opportunity to consider the evidence and decide if the Secretary of State wishes to challenge it in any way. That is a matter for the Secretary of State, not a matter for us and that is why we do not feel able to accede to Mr Ahmed’s perfectly proper but unsuccessful submission that we should do more.
5. We find an error of law by agreement. We direct the case be heard again in the First-tier Tribunal on all issues. We invite the parties to consider if a further hearing will be necessary. This will require the Secretary of State to look at the evidence but that is not a matter of direction, it is simply something we put in writing in the hope that it will be taken up by the parties.
Notice of Decision
6. The appeal is allowed. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside and the case will be redetermined in the First-tier Tribunal.

Jonathan Perkins

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

15 May 2025