Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-000870

First-tier Tribunal No: RP/50060/2024
LR/00069/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 12th January 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SOLANKI

Between

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Appellant
and

NA
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms N. Kerr, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: Mr Wilson, instructed by Refugee and Migrant Justice Centre

Heard at Field House on 9 October 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 Respondent is a citizen of Sudan. The Appellant in this case is the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
2. To avoid confusion I will refer to NA as the Appellant and the Secretary of State for the Home Department as the Respondent, which is how they were referred to in the First-Tier Tribunal (‘FtT’).
3. The issue for to decide is whether the FtT Judge Howard (‘the Judge’) erred in law, in a decision dated 23 December 2024, when allowing the Appellant’s appeal against the decision of the Respondent to refuse his application on protection grounds.
Background
4. The Appellant entered the United Kingdom on 23 June 2022 and claimed asylum. He was granted refugee status on 23 August 2022 until 27 August 2028.
5. On 8 September 2023 the Appellant applied for a transfer of conditions.
6. On 23 January 2024 his claim was referred to the UNHCR by the Respondent on the basis she was considering revoking his status. On 6 March 2024 the Respondent made a decision to revoke the Appellant’s refugee status.
7. The Appellant appealed the decision of the Respondent on 12 March 2024.
8. This appeal was heard by the FtT on 9 December 2024. The Judge dismissed his appeal on asylum grounds and allowed his appeal on humanitarian protection grounds in a decision dated 23 December 2024
First-Tier Tribunal Decision
9. In allowing the Appellant’s appeal the FtT made the following findings, (I have not set out all the findings as those are in the decision of the FtT. I have only summarised the most relevant to this decision here):
i. Paragraph 59 – The Appellant’s evidence was that he had never attended school, he was uneducated and he was unemployed when he left Sudan.
ii. Paragraph 75 – The Appellant did not face any problems between January 2021 and when he left Sudan in April 2021 which indicates he was not of continuing interest to the authorities. The Appellant had not demonstrated he had a political profile which came to the attention of the authorities.
iii. Paragraph 76 – He gave a plausible account of being detained in 2019 and of having attended a demonstration against the Sudanese regime. This alone did not give him a profile which would result in a real risk of mistreatment on return.
iv. Paragraphs 80-82 – The Appellant had not demonstrated he was at real risk of persecution on account of his political opinion. He did not face problems before he left and had not shown he had a profile or background that enhanced his risk on return. He attended only one meeting in January 2021.
v. Paragraph 83 – The Appellant was required to show a real risk of harm on return to Sudan, having regard to the Country Policy and Information Note (‘CPIN’) Sudan Humanitarian Situation, dated 5 March 2024 at 3.1.1.
vi. Paragraphs 84-85 – The Appellant was from Khartoum and he would be at real risk of harm were he to be returned there, having regard to the CPIN Sudan Humanitarian Situation, dated 5 March 2024.
vii. Paragraph 86-89 – With reference to the CPIN Sudan Humanitarian Situation, dated 5 March 2024 at 4.1.2 and 9.1.4-5, and the Appellant’s factual matrix, internal relocation would not be safe for him. The CPIN appears to accept that internal relocation through a conflict affected area, such as Khartoum, was unlikely to be reasonable. The CPIN showed that attacks had resulted in an overall humanitarian crisis in the Al-Jazirah region.
viii. Paragraphs 90-91 – The Appellant’s account that he had not been in Sudan since April 2021 and he had been in the UK since 2022 was taken into account. It was accepted he had given a credible account of having lost contact with his relatives.
ix. Paragraph 92-93 – On the lower standard and considering the evidence holistically, his circumstances, and the current situation in Sudan internal relocation would be unduly harsh and unreasonable. He would be at real risk of serious harm on return. He has demonstrated he is at real risk of indiscriminate violence owing to his particular circumstances on return.
Grounds of Appeal
10. The Respondent appealed the decision on 2 January 2025. I summarise the grounds of appeal as follows:
• The FtT erred by failing to provide adequate reasoning and/or failed to consider material evidence (para. 2 grounds).
• The burden of proof in respect of internal relocation lay with the Appellant as per MB (Internal relocation – burden of proof) Albania [2019] UKUT 00392. He put forward no evidence bar a witness statement (para. 3 grounds).
• The sections of the CPIN cited by the FtT are only relevant to certain parts of Sudan. Section 4.1.2 made clear that relocation from or through a conflict point was unreasonable, but that a person could remain in an area such as Port Sudan which is unaffected by the conflict. This followed on from 4.1.1 of the CPIN (para. 3 grounds).
• The FtT failed to consider or adequately reason why A could not return to Port Sudan and remain there. References to 9.1.4-5 of the CPIN are to Al-Jazirah states. The reference to Port Sudan at 9.1.5 is to potential threats of RSF attacks on areas rather than actual conflict. The FtT has failed to consider or accurately consider the background material, with A having provided no material in relation to the issue (para. 4 grounds).
• The references at paras. 87, 90-92 of the FtT decision in respect of the Appellant’s factual matrix are brief and inadequate. There is inadequate reasoning as to why the absence of loss of contact with relatives and his absence from Sudan (of two years) would make internal relocation unreasonable. The Appellant is 28 years old with no vulnerabilities identified. It is not clear on what basis the FtT considered he would be at real risk of serious harm or indiscriminate violence owing to his particular circumstances.
11. Permission to appeal was refused by the FtT on 14 February 2025.
12. On 19 February 2025 the Respondent renewed her application for permission to appeal.
Grant of Permission
13. In a decision dated 27 March 2025 the respondent was granted permission to appeal. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:

“2. The Grounds – which are essentially premised on the notion that the Appellant could travel directly to Port Sudan and remain there – are arguable.
3. At paragraph 86 the Judge cites paragraph 4.1.2 of the Respondent’s CPIN ‘Sudan: Humanitarian Situation’ (5 March 2024). The paragraph includes recognition that Port Sudan is “not affected by the conflict”, and then goes on to consider issues of relocation for persons “not remaining in the city”. Subsequent passages from the CPIN cited by the Judge relate to Khartoum and the territory of al-Jazirah - which are approximately 600 miles away from Port Sudan.
4. Further reference is made to the situation in Khartoum (where the Grounds do not appear to dispute the Judge’s conclusion that the Appellant would be at risk) at paragraph 88 – “… the respondent appears to accept internal relocation from or through a conflict affected area such as Khartoum is unlikely to [be] reasonable”; and further reference is made to the situation in al-Jazirah at paragraph 89 – “… attacks resulted in an overall humanitarian crisis in the Al-Jazirah region”.
5. The focus in the Judge’s analysis of the country information on Khartoum and neighbouring al-Jazirah appeared to suggest the possibility of relocation to Port Sudan was not considered because it would not be reasonable for the Appellant to travel there from Khartoum. However, in circumstances where the Appellant could potentially enter Sudan at Port Sudan International airport, and remain in the city, it is arguable that the First-tier Tribunal’s evaluation of internal relocation is not adequately reasoned or otherwise failed to have regard to relevant evidence.
6. Permission to appeal is granted on all of the Grounds.”
Submissions
14. The matter came before the Upper Tribunal in an error of law hearing on 9 October 2025.
15. The Tribunal heard submissions from both representatives. Mr Kerr relied upon the grounds of appeal and expanded upon these before me, highlighting that the Judge had considered the situation in Khartoum and Al Jazirah. Mr Wilson accepted before me that the Tribunal did not address the issue of the Appellant being returned to Port Sudan, but he submitted that this was not a material error of law as the situation in the Red Sea (where Port Sudan is situated) is fluid and the finding at §87 of the decision was sufficient to address all areas of Sudan.
16. The documents before the Tribunal consisted of a 143 page consolidated bundle. This includes the documents which were before the FtT.
17. I was also provided with a Rule 24 response dated 4 June 2025. In summary, that document asserted that the situation in Port Sudan had declined since the FtT heard the appeal and that the area was no longer safe. I was not provided with the actual evidence referred to in the document. Only one hyperlink to the country material referred to (out of three pieces of evidence referenced) was present. No Rule 15(2A) application had been made under The Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008. Mr Wilson accepted before me that the Rule 24 response sought to rely on evidence that was not before the FtT. Mr Wilson did not seek to rely on this document before me and accepted that it was not relevant to whether there was a material error of law in the FtT decision.
Findings and Reasons
18. For the reasons set out below, I have come to the conclusion that the grounds of appeal do make out a material error of law.
19. The Respondent’s Review before the FtT made clear at §17 that the situation in Khartoum, where the Appellant is from, was acknowledged but that no evidence was provided by the Appellant to demonstrate why he could not internally relocate. It was highlighted that the skeleton and witness statement of the Appellant were brief. I have considered these two documents and would agree that they were very brief and did not address this issue adequately.
20. The paragraphs of the CPIN Sudan Humanitarian Situation, dated 5 March 2024, as referred to by the FtT in considering the issue of relocation are 4.1.2 and 9.1.4-5. I set these out in full:

“4.1.2 Relocation from or through a conflict-affected areas is unlikely to be reasonable. Persons would need to return to an area or city not affected by the conflict, such as Port Sudan, then, if not remaining in the city, relocate from there. However, since the outbreak of the conflict freedom of movement has been limited in practice due to conflict-related risks. Road and airport closures due to the fighting have restricted people's movement away from conflict-affected areas to seek safety and access humanitarian aid and other services. In addition, scarcity of fuel, banditry, criminality, and illegal checkpoints have impeded movement (see Freedom of Movement and country policy and information note, Sudan: Security situation).
9.1.4 The same source further noted:
'After the conflict between the RSF and the SAF broke out in April 2023, Wad Madani emerged as a critical humanitarian hub, hosting hundreds of thousands of internally displaced people (IDP) escaping the conflict in Khartoum. It served as the initial destination for those leaving the capital before seeking refuge in other countries or Sudanese states, owing to its strategic location in the southeast of Khartoum ...
'On 15 December 2023, the RSF initiated a large-scale offensive against the SAF, with RSF forces advancing toward the outskirts of Wad Madani, where the clashes concentrated for three days in at least 17 distinct towns and villages ...
'On 18 December... the RSF gained control of Wad Madani and most other cities in al-Jazirah state...
'During the attack in al-Jazirah, there were widespread atrocities committed by the RSF. RSF troops were accused of looting several civilian populated areas, while also killing and raping local residents and displaced citizens ... After gaining control of Wad Madani and al-Haj Abdallah, the RSF restricted civilian movement by preventing them from fleeing to Sennar. This action further exacerbated the challenges of accessing humanitarian aid and the last few functioning health facilities by civilians attempting to escape the conflict zones, contributing to the overall humanitarian crisis in the region.'
9.1.5 The same source further observed: 'The capture of al-Jazirah by the RSF stands as a defining moment in the ongoing conflict with the SAF. This event has not only led to an expansion of hostilities into new territories, particularly in the middle regions such as Sennar state, but it has also brought forth threats of RSF attacks on River Nile, Gedaref and Port Sudan. Simultaneously, the fall of Wad Madani city has triggered ethnic mobilization across areas under SAF control, casting doubt on the SAF's ability to protect these regions. Furthermore, this situation has the potential to prompt defections within the SAF ranks in response to their withdrawal from Wad Madani, with many Sudanese calling the SAF chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan to step down.'”
(emphasis added)
21. Ms Kerr and the grounds of appeal also refer me to paragraph 4.1.1 of the CPIN Sudan Humanitarian Situation, dated 5 March 2024. This was not considered by the Judge in the decision. This reads as follows:

“4.1.1 Internal relocation may be possible in areas not directly affected by conflict, such as Red Sea, River Nile, Northern and White Nile states. Some internally displaced populations (IDPs) have self-relocated in search of safety. However, the situation remains fluid with fighting being reported in previously unaffected states such Al Jazirah, Sennar, River Nile, Gedaref, Kassala and Red Sea. There are parts of the country under government control, particularly the east (for information on areas under government control see Security situation) where it will be reasonable for a person to relocate. However, Each case must be considered on its facts and in light of most current information.”
(emphasis added)
22. It is clear from the decision of the FtT that the judge did not consider the possibility of the Appellant returning to Port Sudan and indeed this is accepted by Mr Wilson.
23. I have highlighted above that paragraph 4.1.2 of the relevant CPIN does actually look at return to Port Sudan. I note specifically that this was a paragraph put into the FtT decision by the Judge at paragraph 86. Despite this being in the decision, nothing that follows in the decision suggests that the Judge considered this as a possibility.
24. I have considered the submission made by the Appellant that the situation in Port Sudan / Red Sea is fluid. That may be so, but this was not something addressed adequately or at all by the Judge and as Ms Kerr submits reasons are required for decisions.
25. I have also considered paragraph 87 of the FtT decision, which is relied on by Appellant. Here the Judge states, “Considering the evidence holistically, and considering the appellant’s particular factual matrix, I am not satisfied that internal relocation to another part of Sudan will be safe for him.” What follows, at paragraph 88 and 89 of the decision however, demonstrates further that the grounds of appeal are made out. At paragraph 88 the Judge considers the possibility of relocation from or through Khartoum/a conflict affected area (which highlights that the Judge has not considered possibility of return to Port Sudan). At paragraph 89, the Judge specifically refers to the background evidence showing that there is a humanitarian crisis in Al-Jazirah.
26. The grounds of appeal argue that the decision does not adequately explain why the Appellant’s loss of contact with relatives in Sudan and his short absence (of a few years) from Sudan, as referred to at paragraphs 90 and 91 of the decision, would make relocation unreasonable. In the context of return to Port Sudan, I agree that the reasons are inadequate.
27. It follows from the above that the grounds of appeal are made out. As per R (Iran) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 982 at 9(ii)(iii), a failure to give reasons or adequate reasons on material matters is an error of law and so is a failure to take into account or resolve conflicts of fact or opinion on material matters.
Notice of Decision / Remaking and Disposal
28. For the aforementioned reasons, there are material errors of law in the decision of the FtT. The decision to allow the appeal on humanitarian protection grounds is set aside.
29. The parties agreed that the hearing could remain in the Upper Tribunal if an error of law was found. I agree with this having regard to 7.1-7.3 of the Practice Statement of the Immigration and Asylum Chambers of the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal.
30. The parties also agreed that the findings of the FtT were to be preserved, bar paragraphs 86-89, 92-93 and paragraph 96 of the decision.
31. It is highlighted that the issue between the parties is whether the Appellant can relocate, namely to Port Sudan, having regard to his particular circumstances and the country situation. Any skeleton arguments and evidence served must focus upon the issues.
32. The Tribunal accordingly issues the following directions:

1) The Appellant has permission to serve any further evidence (in a consolidated, indexed and paginated bundle) and any cross-referenced skeleton argument that he wishes to rely upon, within 28 days of this decision being sent.
2) The Respondent has permission to serve any skeleton argument and further evidence that she wishes to rely upon, after 14 days of receipt of the Appellant’s evidence and submissions.
3) The Appellant has permission to serve any submissions in response to the Respondent’s documents within 7 days of receipt of the same.
4) The matter is to be listed for three hours.
5) An Sudanese Arabic speaking interpreter will be required.

P. Solanki

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

3 January 2026