Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: UI-2025-001091
PA/52602/2024
LP/06978/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Determined without a hearing
Decision & Reasons Issued
On 16 July 2025
On 21 July 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE OWENS

Between

SA
(ANONYMITY ORDER NOT MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant appeals with permission against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal promulgated on 10 January 2025 dismissing the appellant’s appeal against a decision to refuse his protection and human rights claim.
2. The appellant is a citizen of Iraq who claimed asylum on the basis that he was at risk of honour killing in Iraq.
3. The grounds asserted that the judge failed to consider the question of vulnerability in accordance with Joint Presidential Guidance Note no 2 of 2010. The appellant was unrepresented, has mental health problems and was the victim of a traumatic assault in Iraq. It was asserted that the judge failed to factor in the appellant’s vulnerability when assessing credibility.
4. On 5 March 2025 permission was granted by First-tier Tribunal Judge Mulready on the basis that the judge arguably erred by failing to treat him as a vulnerable witness and consider the impact that might have on his evidence and on the basis that the judge’s finding that the assailants did not intend to kill him when they stabbed him in the head/face was arguably irrational. Permission was also granted on the basis that the judge failed to address paragraph 339K of the immigration rules and arguably failed to have proper regard to the background evidence in relation to sufficiency of protection and internal relocation.
5. On 18 March 2025, I issued directions indicating that my preliminary view is that the grounds had merit and the decision contained several errors of law sufficient to set aside the decision and remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing without holding an oral hearing at the Upper Tribunal. The parties were given the opportunity to object to this course of action and that the absence of a response would be inferred as an agreement with this course of action.
6. Neither party responded to directions.
7. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that both parties are in agreement that the decision contains a material error of law and that it is fair and in the interests of justice to determine the error of law decision without an oral hearing in accordance with rule 34 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008.
8. The decision is flawed by procedural unfairness because the appellant was not treated as a vulnerable witness and no consideration was given to how that impacted on his evidence, because the finding that the assailants did not to intend the to kill the appellant when they stabbed him in the face and head was irrational; because the judge failed to consider paragraph 339K of the immigration rules and because the judge failed to have proper regard to the background evidence in relation to sufficiency of protection and internal relocation.
9. Given the extent of the findings needed and because the appeal was vitiated by unfairness, it is appropriate to remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal be heard de novo.

Notice of Decision
10. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error of law.
11. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside, and the findings of the First-tier Tribunal are set aside in their entirety.
12. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard de novo by a judge other than First-tier Tribunal Judge Scullion.

Signed Date: 16 July 2025

R J Owens
Upper Tribunal Judge Owens