Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-000520

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/60744/2023
LP/04886/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 12th of September 2025

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CONNAL

Between

AM
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Khan, Midland Law Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr Walker, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House by Cloud Video Platform on 22 May 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. The Appellant appeals, with the permission of the First-tier Tribunal, the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 25 November 2024 (the FTT Decision), following a hearing which took place on 1 November 2024. In the FTT Decision, the First-tier Tribunal Judge (the Judge) dismissed the Appellant’s appeal against the Respondent’s refusal of his application for protection made on 16 December 2020. The Respondent’s decision was made on 1 November 2023.
2. Permission to appeal was granted by the First-tier Tribunal on 16 January 2025.
Anonymity Direction
3. An anonymity direction was made by the First-tier Tribunal. The Appellant previously made a protection claim and, while that claim was not accepted (as set out below), some of the factual matters which formed the basis of that claim were accepted by the First-tier Tribunal. In the circumstances, I consider it appropriate for the anonymity direction to be continued, but for the parties to make further representations to the First-tier Tribunal in due course as to whether it should be maintained.
Factual background
4. The Appellant entered the UK in May 2009 and says that he has been residing in the UK since that date. The Respondent’s refusal letter refers to the Appellant’s visitor visa expiring on 16 October 2010, and the Appellant subsequently making an appeal on the grounds of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) that was denied on 28 November 2010. The Appellant applied for protection on or around 16 December 2020.
5. The Appellant’s application was refused by the Respondent in the decision dated 1 November 2023. Among other matters, the Respondent: accepted the Appellant’s claimed identity and nationality; rejected that there was an applicable Convention reason; rejected the material facts of the Appellant’s claim for protection, namely his claimed land dispute with his brother, and his claim regarding his brother’s position in society; alternatively, if the key material facts of the Appellant’s claim had been accepted, found that there would be sufficient protection from persecution, and the Appellant could also internally relocate; found that the Appellant’s removal would not be contrary to Article 8 of the ECHR, as the Appellant did not have a family life in the UK, and there would not be very significant obstacles to his integration on return; and found that the Appellant had not raised any exceptional compassionate circumstances or other compelling reasons to grant leave on a discretionary basis.
The FTT Decision
6. At the First-tier Tribunal hearing, both parties were represented, and the Judge heard oral evidence from the Appellant, before hearing submissions from the representatives.
7. In the FTT Decision, the Judge recorded that the Appellant asserted that “…he would be at risk on return…for a Convention reason, namely a land dispute with his brother, alternatively he argues he is entitled to humanitarian protection”, and set out the agreed issues in dispute in this regard. The Judge then, having set out the legal framework applicable to asylum and humanitarian protection claims, proceeded to address the Appellant’s claims on these grounds. In dismissing the Appellant’s appeal, the Judge’s findings included, among other matters, that: the Appellant’s claim did not fall within the Refugee Convention as there was no Convention reason; the Appellant’s claim that his brother had been demanding the Appellant’s share of land inherited from their father and his business was credible; the Appellant would, however, be able to internally relocate and had not shown that there were substantial grounds for believing he would face a real risk of suffering serious harm on return; and while the Appellant had mental and physical health challenges for which he had received treatment, the threshold of Article 3 of the ECHR had not been met.
The appeal to the Upper Tribunal
8. In summary, the Appellant applied for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on two grounds:
a. Ground 1 – The Judge had failed to properly consider the Appellant’s claim for humanitarian protection. In particular, the Judge had failed to adequately address the issue of a real risk of harm, and more particularly had failed to adequately or properly consider the issue of internal relocation (the Appellant conceding in the grounds for permission to appeal that the Appellant’s claim did not fall within the ambit of the Refugee Convention); and
b. Ground 2 – The Judge had failed to make any findings regarding the Appellant’s private life claim under Article 8 of the ECHR, which had been specifically pleaded and which the Respondent had considered in the refusal letter. The Judge had failed to consider whether there would be very significant obstacles to the Appellant’s integration on return, and had made no findings under the Immigration Rules or under Article 8 outside the Immigration Rules.
9. Permission to appeal was granted by the First-tier Tribunal only on Ground 2. No renewed application was made for permission to appeal on Ground 1.
10. The Respondent filed no Rule 24 response.
The error of law hearing
11. The matter comes before the Upper Tribunal to determine whether the decision contains an error of law and, if it is so concluded, to either re-make the decision or to remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal to do so. A bundle was submitted by the Appellant containing, among other documents, the core documents in the appeal, including the bundles of the Appellant and the Respondent before the First-tier Tribunal.
12. The hearing was attended by representatives for both parties as recorded above. At the outset of the hearing, I confirmed with Mr Khan that permission to appeal had been granted only on Ground 2, namely the failure to consider the Appellant’s appeal under Article 8 of the ECHR. I then confirmed with Mr Walker that no Rule 24 response had been filed, and invited Mr Walker to briefly confirm the Respondent’s position. Mr Walker advised the Tribunal that the parties were in agreement, and that the Respondent conceded that there was a material error of law in the FTT Decision as the Judge had failed to consider the Appellant’s Article 8 claim, which had been referred to in the Appellant’s appeal skeleton argument (ASA) as well as in the Appellant’s witness statement.
13. I confirmed with Mr Khan that he had appeared at the hearing before the First-tier Tribunal. The agreed list of issues at [7] of the FTT Decision did not include issues relating to the Appellant’s private life/Article 8 of the ECHR, and I queried whether confirmation had been given on the day of the hearing that Article 8 was not going to be pursued by the Appellant. Mr Khan confirmed that no such confirmation had been given, and that he had checked his notes of the hearing and that the Appellant had talked about his private life in his oral evidence. Mr Khan again noted that the Appellant’s private life had been considered in the Respondent’s refusal letter, as well as being raised in the ASA and in the Appellant’s written and oral evidence.
14. Having heard from the parties, I communicated my acceptance of the Respondent’s concession, which I did not seek to go behind. I consider that concession to have been properly made. The issue of the Appellant’s private life for the purposes of Article 8 of the ECHR was considered in the Respondent’s refusal letter, and formed the second issue set out in the ASA, as well as being addressed in the Appellant’s appeal statement. Further, Mr Khan, who attended the First-tier Tribunal hearing, confirmed that this had been maintained at the time of the hearing, and that the Appellant had spoken about his private life in his oral evidence. However, the Judge did not address Article 8 of the ECHR within the FTT Decision, and there was no dismissal of an appeal on human rights grounds. The only references to the Appellant’s private life in the UK appeared at [21] – [24] of the FTT Decision but did so in the context of the Judge’s consideration of the Appellant’s health and Article 3 of the ECHR. No findings were made as to whether Article 8 was engaged, or as to whether the Appellant met the requirements of the Immigration Rules regarding his private life, or otherwise as to the proportionality assessment. In these circumstances, there was a material error of law in the failure to consider and make findings regarding this element of the Appellant’s appeal.
15. With regard to disposal of the matter, Mr Walker and Mr Khan agreed that the findings of the First-tier Tribunal on the protection element of the Appellant’s appeal should be preserved, and that the appeal should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal on Article 8 grounds only.
16. Mr Khan also raised that the Appellant intended to lodge further updating medical evidence regarding the Appellant’s physical and mental health, for the purposes of his Article 8 claim, and I noted that I anticipated that the First-tier Tribunal would issue directions in this regard in due course.
17. Finally, I would add here, with regard to the references to Paragraph 276ADE(1) and Appendix Private Life in the grounds for permission to appeal, that the parties will require to address the First-tier Tribunal in due course as to the applicable Immigration Rules for the purposes of the Appellant’s private life claim under Article 8, noting in particular the implementation provisions of the Statement of changes in Immigration Rules: HC 1118.
Notice of Decision
1. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal to refuse the Appellant’s appeal on asylum and humanitarian protection grounds is upheld, and those findings are preserved.
2. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal contained a material error of law in relation to the consideration of the Appellant’s human rights claim under Article 8 of the ECHR. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for hearing afresh, by a judge other than Judge Young-Harry, only in relation to the Appellant’s human rights claim under Article 8 of the ECHR.
3. The parties will be notified by the First-tier Tribunal of a fresh hearing date and directions for the lodging of updating evidence, in due course.
4. There is an anonymity order in place.

L.C. Connal
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
2 September 2025