Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-000847
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/68562/2023
LP/11782/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Directions Issued:

On 3rd of March 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE JACKSON

Between

JS
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

DIRECTIONS
1. The Appellant appeals with permission against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Mill promulgated on 5 December 2024, dismissing his appeal against the Respondent’s decision to refuse his protection and human rights claim. There were four grounds of appeal and permission to appeal was granted without restriction; albeit in the written reasons for the grant of permission, only two were considered to have arguable merit. The first related to the lack of interpreter being available at the hearing before the First-tier Tribunal and the second related to the appeal essentially being determined on the papers when it was listed as an oral hearing and all parties were present. Both of these grounds raised issues of procedural fairness.
2. In a rule 24 response dated 1 May 2025, the Respondent stated that she did not oppose the application for permission and invited the Upper Tribunal to determine the appeal with a fresh oral ‘de-novo’ hearing either in the Upper Tribunal or remitted to the First-tier Tribunal. In relation to the grounds, the Respondent stated as follows:
“Ground [in GOA the grounds are unnumbered] That the appellant could not conduct the hearing solely in English and in addition as adverse credibility findings were made the hearing took place purely on the papers and no oral hearing was offered despite being listed for an oral hearing and the appellant being present. The grounds assert that it was procedurally unfair in that the First-tier Immigration Judge made adverse credibility findings in respect of credibility points not put to the appellant either in x-examination nor questions from the Judge. It is arguable that this is a material error of law that could result in unfairness to the Appellant.”
3. The Respondent’s position is not entirely consistent as to whether an error of law is accepted given the references to arguability; but it must be for the invitation to the Upper Tribunal to list a de novo hearing (in whichever venue).
4. The rule 24 response also includes the Presenting Officer’s notes of the hearing, both in summary and in terms of a record of proceedings. The record of proceedings is consistent with the grounds of appeal pursued. The summary of the hearing raises further separate concerning features as it is unclear why there was a separate discussion between the Judge and the Presenting Officer before the hearing without the Appellant being present and that discussion seemed to include an indication from the Judge on the merits of part of the case before it was heard and which was not otherwise put to the Appellant.
5. In all of the circumstances, it is my preliminary view that the First-tier Tribunal erred in law as a matter of procedural fairness in proceeding to determine the Appellant’s protection and asylum appeal essentially on the papers, despite an oral hearing having been listed and where credibility was in issue with points not being put to the Appellant (including the additional point referred to by the Judge before the hearing had even commenced). Further, that the there was procedural unfairness in failing to adjourn the hearing for an interpreter to attend to allow the Appellant to fully engage in the appeal as an unrepresented litigant. Whether or not the Appellant could speak some English (and the assessment of this by the Judge was at least questionable being based on a written statement in English and brief conversation with the clerk before the hearing) a litigant in person is entitled to request an interpreter to be able to fully participate in a hearing in circumstances where English is not his first language.
6. It is further my preliminary view that in these circumstances the decision of the First-tier Tribunal must be set aside and a de novo hearing listed for the appeal to be determined afresh by a different Judge. On the basis that there has been procedural unfairness and the Appellant has not yet had any fair hearing before the First-tier Tribunal, it would be appropriate for the appeal to be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal.
7. As such, the Upper Tribunal is minded to find a material error of law in the decision of the First-tier Tribunal, set it aside and remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing before any Judge except Judge Mill.
Directions
Any party who is opposed to this course of action is directed to inform the Tribunal in writing (giving reasons), not later than 14 days after the date on which these directions are sent by the Upper Tribunal.
Following that period, if there is no reasoned objection to this approach, these directions will stand as the decision in UI-2025-000847 to find an error of law; set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal and remit the appeal for a de novo hearing in the First-tier Tribunal.
If there is a reasoned objection to this approach, the appeal will be listed for error of law hearing.

G Jackson

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

28th August 2025