Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM
CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-000741

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/61511/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 7th of January 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MANDALIA

Between

FS
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Appellant
and

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent
Representation
For the Appellant: Ms Kinney
For the Respondent: Mrs Arif, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Royal Courts of Justice, Belfast on 17 September 2025
Decision and Reasons
Anonymity
1. This appeal concerns a claim for international protection. 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.”
Introduction
2. The appellant is a national of Somalia. Her claim for international protection was refused by the respondent on 11 April 2024. The respondent accepted the appellant’s identity and nationality but rejected the core of the appellant’s account that she will be at risk upon return to Somalia for the reasons claimed by the appellant.
3. The appellant’s appeal was dismissed by First-tier Tribunal (“FtT”) Judge Rea (“the judge”) for reasons set out in a decision dated 13 November 2024. The appellant claims the decision of the judge is vitiated by two material errors of law. First, the appellant claims the judge failed to have regard to the appellant’s profile as someone sold into marriage to a member of Al Shabaab for the purpose of sexual slavery and her evidence that her ‘ex-husband’ was still looking for her. Second, the judge said that the appellant would be returning to Somalia with her current husband. The appellant’s evidence was that her current husband has made a claim for asylum and is himself at risk upon return to Somalia. There was evidence of that claim in the respondent’s bundle.
4. Permission to appeal was granted by FtT judge Tozzi on 6 February 2025. Judge Tozzi said that it is arguable that the judge failed to conduct an assessment of the appellant’s particular circumstances when assessing the risk on return. Furthermore, there is no finding as to whether or not the appellant’s current husband had made a claim for asylum and no assessment of the impact of any such claim upon the appellant’s circumstances on return.
The Hearing of the Appeal Before Me
5. Before me, Ms Kinney adopted the skeleton argument filed on behalf of the appellant. On behalf of the appellant she submits the judge refers to there being no general risk to members of the public from Al-Shabaab. The judge sets out a list of occupations, stating that the appellant is not in a group likely to be targeted by Al-Shabaab. There is however no consideration whatsoever of the appellant’s personal circumstances and the background to her claim. The appellant’s evidence was that three years and eight months after she left Somalia, her ex-husband was still looking for her at a time when her uncle was kidnapped and her sister had been murdered. The judge said, at [15], that “notwithstanding her previous experience” the judge was not satisfied that the appellant would be the victim of an Al-Shabaab attack. It is not clear what “previous experience” the judge had in mind. The judge also erred in concluding the appellant would return to Somalia with her husband and child, without referring to the appellant’s evidence that her current husband has also made a claim for asylum nor any consideration of what the position would be if his claim is successful.
6. In reply, Mrs Arif submits the judge proceeds on the basis that the appellant’s husband does not have refugee status, and the appellant could at the time of the decision, return to Somalia with the husband.
Decision
7. I am satisfied that the decision of the FtT judge is vitiated by material errors of law and must be set aside.
8. The judge found the appellant’s claim is based on a Convention reason because her fear of Al-Shabaab can reasonably be characterised as a fear based on political opinion. The judge found, at [14], that the appellant would be returned to Mogadishu. The judge referred to relevant background material and country guidance and said that there is no general risk to members of the public from Al Shabaab in Mogadishu. The judge said, at [15], that he was not satisfied that the appellant has any public profile which makes it likely that she would be specifically targeted. The judge went on to say that “notwithstanding her previous experience”, he was not satisfied that this makes it more likely that she would be the victim of an At Shabaab attack. Although there is no duty on a judge, in giving reasons, to deal with every argument presented or to refer to every point of the evidence, a judge is required to identify and analyse the key features of the written and oral evidence. Regrettably that is not apparent from the decision in this appeal.
9. The appellant’s case was a simple one as summarised in the respondent’s decision and set out in the witness statement of the appellant that was before the FtT. The judge did not make any findings regarding the core of the appellant’s account of events. The judge did not, for example, say whether he accepted or rejected the appellant’s claim that in January 2020 she had been forced by her stepmother to marry a high-ranking member of Al-Shabaab in exchange for her receiving money. The judge does not say whether he accepts or rejects the appellant’s account that she was forcibly confined by her former husband for a period of 20 days before she managed to escape. The judge does not address the appellant’s presence in Mogadishu for about one month. The judge does not address the appellant’s evidence in her witness statement that when she was in Greece she had been contacted by her paternal aunt who advised her that her ex-husband was still looking for her and that her sister had been abducted. The claims made by the appellant had been rejected by the respondent. There may well have been issues concerning the credibility of the appellant’s account, but the difficulty here is that reading the decision, it is difficult to discern those aspects (beyond nationality, which was accepted by the respondent) that the judge accepted or rejected.
10. That in itself is sufficient to set aside the decision of the FtT. I simply add that there is force to the submission made on behalf of the appellant that the judge concluded, at [19], that the appellant would return to Somalia with her husband and children without engaging at all with the evidence set out in the appellant's witness statement that her current partner arrived in the UK separately, and has made a separate claim for asylum. There was little evidence before the FtT regarding that claim. For reasons that are neither apparent nor explained, the appellant and her partner made separate claims and are represented by different firms of solicitors. Despite knowing of the separate claims, it seems no attempt was made to ensure relevant evidence was before the tribunal or that the claims could be dealt with in tandem.
11. It follows that in my judgement the decision of the FtT must be set aside.
Disposal
12. I am conscious of the Court of Appeal’s decision in AEB v SSHD [2022] EWCA Civ 1512, Begum (Remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 00046 (IAC) and §7.2 of the Senior President’s Practice Statements. Sub-paragraph (a) deals with where the effect of the error has been to deprive a party before the Tribunal of a fair hearing or other opportunity for that party's case to be put to and considered by the FtT, whereas sub-paragraph (b) directs me to consider whether I am satisfied that the nature or extent of any judicial fact finding which is necessary in order for the decision in the appeal to be re-made is such that, having regard to the overriding objective in rule 2, it is appropriate to remit the case to the First-tier Tribunal.
13. Having regard to the nature of the error of law, I accept the appellant was deprived of a fair opportunity to have all the evidence she relied upon considered by the FtT and the appropriate course, in fairness to the appellant, is for the appeal to be remitted for rehearing before the FtT.
Notice of Decision
14. The decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Rea dated 13 November 2024 is set aside.
15. The appeal is remitted to the FtT for hearing afresh with no findings preserved.
16. The parties will be notified of a hearing date by the FtT in due course.

V. Mandalia
Upper Tribunal Judge Mandalia

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

7 December 2025