Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-000852
UI-2025-001095

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/59431/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On the 11 August 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RASTOGI

Between

HM
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms G. Rea of Counsel, instructed by Paragon Law Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr A. Tan, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Birmingham Civil Justice Centre on 21 July 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
1. The appellant appeals, with permission, the decision of a First-Tier Tribunal Judge (“the judge”) dated 3 December 2024 (“the decision”) in which the judge dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the respondent’s decision to refuse his protection and human rights claim.
2. The appellant challenged the decision on ten grounds for which permission was granted in respect of four of them by the First-tier Tribunal (“FTT”) and the remaining grounds were also included within the scope of the grant of decision by a separate decision of the Upper Tribunal.
3. By way of a Rule 24 Notice dated 17 July 2025 the respondent conceded the error of law. The respondent accepted there was a degree of overlap between the various grounds of appeal. The respondent considered there was particular merit in Grounds 1 and 2 in which the respondent accepted the judge failed to identify and consider two expert reports relied on by the appellant within the proceedings before the judge. In particular, Ground 1 challenged the judge’s failure to refer to or consider the report of Dr Kashefi, a country expert, and Ground 2 alleged that the judge failed to have regard to the medical evidence provided by Dr Tsoi which dealt not only with the appellant’s medical conditions but also the impact of trauma upon the appellant’s ability to provide his account. Furthermore, the respondent accepted that the judge failed to deal with either Article 3 or Article 8 insofar as they related to the appellant’s mental health. These challenges fell within Grounds 7 and 8. On this basis, the respondent conceded the judge made an error on point of law arising from all four of those grounds which, given the interrelationship between the various grounds, was material and infected the entirety of the judge’s findings and decision. For that reason the Respondent was of the view the appeal needed to be remitted to the FTT to be heard de novo.
4. At the hearing Ms Rea agreed that the appropriate venue for rehearing of the appeal was the FTT given there could be no preserved findings. I indicated at the hearing that I agreed the decision was infected by material errors of law and that it needed to be set aside with no preserved findings and that the appeal would be remitted to the FTT to be heard by a judge other than the original judge.
5. In brief, my reasoning for arriving at that conclusion was in accordance with the concession made by the respondent in the Rule 24 Notice. The judge made no reference to either of the 2 expert reports within the decision despite noting at [14] that he had been provided with a 762 page bundle of evidence. The report of Dr Kashefi was clearly referenced within the appellant’s skeleton argument (para. 14) and reliance was clearly placed upon it. Although the judge noted the appellant’s vulnerability at [6], and that the appellant was assisted by an intermediary at the hearing, the judge did not further mention the medical evidence or the report of Dr Tsoi and neither did the judge deal with the alternative case on Article 3 grounds notwithstanding extensive reference to that in the Respondent’s Review. Both Dr Kashefi and Dr Tsoi’s reports were relevant to the assessment of the appellant’s credibility. Dr Kashefi’s report was not challenged by the respondent and it was relevant to credibility as it commented both on plausibility and potential risk on return including by way of the sur place material on which the appellant relied. As already indicated, Dr Tsoi spoke of the potential impact of the appellant’s account of his experience of trauma. Therefore, it was incumbent on the judge to consider the appellant’s account through the lens of both the medical evidence and the country material contained within Dr Kashefi’s report.
6. For those reasons, I agree with the respondent that the errors contained within the decision infected the judge’s findings on credibility which, in turn, infected his conclusions on risk on return. In the alternative to the protection claim the judge was obliged to consider the appellant’s claim under Article 3 and in the alternative Article 8 on medical grounds but failed to do so. This is a further error of law.
7. For those reasons Grounds 1,2,7 and 8 contain errors of law which justify setting aside the judge’s decision pursuant to section 12(2)(a) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (“the 2007 Act”) with no facts capable of preservation.
8. Therefore, the appeal is to be reheard de novo. I have considered whether the rehearing of the appeal should take place in the FTT or Upper Tribunal. I have had regard to paragraph 7.2 of the Senior President’s Practice Statement for the Immigration and Asylum Chambers, and the guidance in AEB v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWCA Civ 1512 and Begum (Remaking or Remittal) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] UKUT 46 (IAC), and have concluded that fairness requires the appeal to be reheard in the FTT given the extent of remaking required. I therefore remit the appeal to the FTT pursuant to section 12(2)(b) of the 2007 Act.
Notice of Decision
1. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal contains errors on points of law justifying the decision to be set aside in full with no preserved findings.
2. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard by a judge other than the original judge.

SJ Rastogi
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

4 August 2025