Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM
CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-000818

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/01658/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On the 11 August 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LANE
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BURNS

Between

AR
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Appellant
and

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Representation
For the Appellant: In Person
For the Respondent: Mr Lawson, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Birmingham Civil Justice Centre on 5 August 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 is a national of Pakistan. She arrived in the United Kingdom on 8 November 2021 and claimed asylum on 22 January 2022. The claim was refused by the Respondent for reasons set out in a decision dated 12 December 2023. The Appellant's appeal against that decision was dismissed by First-tier Tribunal (“FtT) Judge McQuillan (“the Judge”) for reasons set out in a decision dated 12 December 2024 (“the decision”).
2. The Appellant was refused permission to appeal by the FtT on 23 January 2025. Permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal was granted on 1 April 2025 by Upper Tribunal Judge Blundell. He found that it was arguable that it was procedurally unfair for the Appellant’s appeal to have been determined without allowing her to have access to the audio recording of her asylum interview. This was because she had consistently maintained that it had been incorrectly transcribed, and the Judge had found inconsistencies between the record of the interview and her oral evidence.
3. Upper Tribunal Judge Blundell ordered the Respondent to file and serve the audio recording of the 20 November 2023 interview within 14 days of his decision.
4. The Respondent responded to the Directions on 14 April 2025 and explained that the audio recording could not be found. The Appellant was informed on 3 July 2025.
The Background
5. The Appellant had applied for protection on her own behalf and on behalf of her husband and 2 children. She said that her husband’s business partner, MZ, threatened and assaulted her because he had lost money in a bad business deal with her husband. She said that she (and her family) would be at risk of harm from the business partner if returned to Pakistan.
The Grounds of Appeal
6. In summary the grounds of appeal assert that
(a) The Appellant disagrees with the Judge’s assessment of the risk to her and her family if returned to Pakistan,
(b) The Appellant says that there were numerous errors in the transcription of the replies she gave in the asylum interview and that the audio recording should be made available,
(c) The Appellant asserts that the photographs prove that she had been tortured,
(d) The Appellant says that the written evidence from her father proves that the risk to her life if returned to Pakistan persists.
PERMISSION TO APPEAL
7. Permission to Appeal was granted on 1 April 2025 in relation to the Judge proceeding in the absence of the audio recording of the asylum interview and the Appellant’s claim about the inaccuracy of the transcription (i.e. point (b) in the above paragraph).
THE ISSUE IN THE APPEAL
8. The issue before us is whether the Judge erred in law by proceeding to determine the appeal in the absence of the audio recording given the claim that the asylum interview record had been inaccurately transcribed.
The Hearing of the Appeal
9. Mr Lawson submitted that the audio recordings of the asylum interviews had now been located and had been sent to the Appellant on 4 August 2025 (i.e. the day before the hearing).
10. Mr Lawson conceded the appeal. He said that the FtT had erred in law by failing to make adequate findings about the Appellant’s claim that the interview had been incorrectly transcribed and also the FtT proceeded in a procedurally unfair manner by not attempting to obtain the audio recordings.
Our Analysis
11. We accept the concession made by Mr Lawson on behalf of the Respondent.
12. The Judge erred in law by not allowing the Appellant to have the opportunity of accessing the recording of her asylum interview prior to him finally determining her appeal.
13. The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014 govern procedural fairness before the FtT. By virtue of Rule 4(3)(h) the Judge had the power to adjourn the hearing and make directions even in the absence of a formal application (Rule 5 (1)).
14. We find that it was procedurally unfair to make a final decision in the absence of giving the Appellant the opportunity to access the audio recording of the asylum interview.
15. Accordingly, we set aside the decision.
16. In accordance with the Practice Statements of the Immigration and Asylum Chambers of the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal dated 11 June 2018 paragraph 7 we find that the appeal should not be retained for further hearing in the Upper Tribunal. We find that the procedure before the FtT deprived the Appellant of a fair hearing (paragraph 7.2 (a)) and there will need to be a complete rehearing wherein the Judge will make findings about the credibility of the Appellant’s account (paragraph 7.2.(b)).

Notice of Decision
The decision of FtT Judge McQuillan dated 12 December 2024 was made in error of law. The decision is set aside in its entirety. None of the findings of fact shall stand. The appeal is returned to the First-tier Tribunal to be reconsidered afresh by a judge other than FtT Judge McQuillan in accordance with the following Directions.

DIRECTIONS
1. The Appellant and Respondent shall, by 4.00pm on 1 November 2025, produce a joint written statement setting out whether the asylum interview record is an accurate transcription of what the appellant said at the interview. If it is claimed by either party to contain any inaccuracies, then these must be highlighted by reference to the question number in the interview, what is written in the transcript and what is said in the audio recording. The joint statement shall be prepared after the Appellant and the Respondent have arranged a mutually convenient time for the Appellant to attend at the Respondent’s offices in Manchester in order to listen to the recording of the interview in the presence of the Respondent’s officer. It is noted that the Appellant is currently 33 weeks pregnant. The Appellant will need to arrange her own interpreter and her own transport to attend the appointment at the Respondent’s office.
2. The Appellant shall, by 4.00pm on 1 November 2025, file at the First-tier Tribunal and serve on the Respondent any further relevant medical evidence to support her claim of memory problems.
3. The Appellant shall, by 4.00pm 1 November 2025, file at the First-tier Tribunal and serve on the Respondent an updated statement, if she considers this necessary,
4. The Appeal is returned to the First-tier Tribunal sitting at Birmingham to be heard on the first available date after 1 November 2025.
5. The First-tier Tribunal will arrange for an Urdu interpreter at the final hearing in the First-tier Tribunal.
6. These Directions may be supplemented by later Directions made by a Judge or Legal Officer of the First-tier Tribunal.

C Burns
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Burns

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

6 August 2025