Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-001368

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/53029/2023
LP/08811/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 9th of July 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HANSON

Between

BTS
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr C Holmes instructed by Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit
For the Respondent: Ms Z Young, a Senior Home Office Presenting Officer.

Heard at Phoenix House (Bradford) on 4 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 a decision of a judge of the First-tier Tribunal, promulgated following a hearing at Manchester on 3 December 2024, in which the Judge dismissed his appeal against the refusal of his protection claim made on 22 November 2021 on entry to the UK.
2. The Judge sets out the issues in dispute at [16], the matters conceded by the Secretary of State at [15], and findings of fact from [20] of the decision under challenge.
3. The Judge at [27] finds that the Appellant’s factual account was not found to be credible or reliable, concluded that the Appellant had not established a Convention reason and as such was not entitled to be treated as a refugee [37] and, for the same reason, that he was not entitled to a grant of humanitarian protection [38].
4. The Appellant sought permission to appeal which was granted by another judge of the First-tier Tribunal, the operative part which reads:
1. The application is in time
2. Ground 1 asserts that the credibility findings are undermined by the Judge’s failure to take account of the Appellant’s age at the time of all of the relevant incidents when assessing credibility. The Appellant was 19 at the time of the hearing but would have been 12 at the time of the initial events and was just 16 when he arrived in the UK. The skeleton argument made reference to his vulnerability and relevant guidance. When assessing credibility the judgement makes no reference to considering vulnerability or the Appellant’s age at the time of the incidents he was giving evidence about. This ground is arguable.
3. Ground 2 argues that the judge conflated “honour violence” and “blood feuds” and relied on evidence relating to honour violence to dismiss the account of a blood feud. This is arguable.
4. Ground 3 argues that the Judge erred in fact by finding that the expert had not been given instructions about the Appellant’s older brother who is living in Kurdistan as this information was set out in the papers provided to the expert. This is arguable.
Discussion and analysis
5. Ground 1 and 2 were conceded before me by the Secretary of State.
6. In relation to Ground 1 it is clear the Judge was aware of age issue. At 10 the Judge writes:
10. The Appellant (“BTS”) was about 12 or 13 when his brother BF left in 2018. The appellant was not told of the reasons by his parents and for some time remained ignorant of the affair and the attack. In August 2019 when the Appellant was 15, he was told by his mother that he was no longer allowed to go to school, for safety reasons, because of the trouble with his brother, but he remained ignorant of the details until his mother told him and informed him that Awin’s father was a high-ranking person in Hashd Al Shabi. An attempt had been made to resolve the honour dispute over the affair, by way of a financial settlement, but this had failed and as a result BF had been sent out of Iraq for his own safety. BTS became aware that his parents were no longer speaking to his brother.
7. Despite this, there is no reference to the Appellant’s vulnerability, no self-direction referring to the Presidential Guidance Note, and nothing to show how this element was factored into the decision-making process in relation to the credibility assessment.
8. Ms Young accepted that a reading of the determination did not show how the vulnerability factor had been taken onto account.
9. It was accepted on behalf of the Secretary of State that Ground 1 was made out.
10. In relation to Grounds 2, it was accepted by Ms Young that the Judge had conflated the two issues as pleased.
11. There was no need to consider Ground 3 in light of the above.
12. I find the determination cannot stand and set it aside with no preserved findings as those made cannot be found to be sustainable in light of the conceded errors.
13. The failure to factor into the credibility assessment a fundamental aspect of the case means the decision-making process is procedurally unfair. The appeal will need to be reheard with all relevant elements being considered afresh.
14. Having considered the Joint Presidential Guidance and Upper Tribunal case law relating to remittals, and accepting the default position would ordinarily be for the appeal to remain in the Upper Tribunal, I find that in light of the extensive fact-finding required and the unfairness affecting the decision as a whole, that is appropriate for the appeal to be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard afresh.
Notice of Decision
15. The First-tier Tribunal has been shown to have materially erred in law. The determination is set aside.
16. The appeal shall be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal sitting at Manchester to be heard de novo by a different judge.

C J Hanson

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

4 July 2025