Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-001371 &
UI-2025-001370

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/64935/2024 &
PA/51643/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 23 July 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KEBEDE
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALIS

Between

M H
H N
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellants
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr Hosen, Solicitor
For the Respondent: Ms Newton, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Manchester Civil Justice Centre on 14 July 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, [the appellant] (and/or any member of his family, expert, witness or other person the Tribunal considers should not be identified) 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 (and/or other person). Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellants are nationals of Bangladesh and are son and mother respectively. They claimed asylum on 3 September 2022 and the Respondent refused their applications on 10 January 2024. The Appellants appealed these decisions and the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) dismissed their appeals in separate decisions promulgated on 28 December 2024.
2. The Appellants appealed the FTT’s decision and permission to appeal was granted on 24 March 2025 for the following reasons:
“2. At §21 the judge accepts that the appellant has an interest in politics and at a local level has been involved in supporting the BNP, accepting that he has done this for many years and that his political activities may have brought him into conflict with members of the opposition party, the Awami league. At §35 the judge concludes however that the treatment the appellant might face on return does not reach the level of persecution.
3. It is arguable that the judge has not made adequate findings in relation to the appellant’s claim to have suffered physical mistreatment and torture and there is no clear findings regarding the appellant’s claim to have been historically subject to persecution.
4. Despite making reference to discrepancies at §29 the judge has failed to reach any clear findings on the matters raised.
5. At §30-33 the judge considers the newspaper and medical evidence, however, the judge failed to make any findings in relation to this evidence which is claimed to support the appellant’s claim of torture.
6. It is arguable that the judge has failed to give adequate reasons for her overall conclusions reached.
7. Whilst I do not accept that the judge erred in relation to her Article 8 assessment, I do not restrict the grant of permission.”
3. The appeal was listed for a hearing before us on the above date. All parties appeared at the hearing centre.
4. An anonymity order was made in the First-tier and we extend that order to cover these proceedings.

PRELIMINARY ISSUE
5. Ms Newton indicated that following a discussion between herself and Mr Hosen she accepted the FTT had failed to make findings on what were said to be inconsistencies and this amounted to a material error in law.
DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS
6. In light of the above concession we accepted there was an error in law. Key to our decision were the lack of reasons contained in paragraphs [29] to [33] of MH’s FTT decision. The FTT identified what were said to be discrepancies but failed to make any findings about those matters.
7. The only findings about the MH’s claim were contained in paragraph [35] and there the FTT accepted “the Appellant has been politically active albeit at a local level” and this “would have brought him into conflict with individuals from the Awami league”. The FTT also accepted “at times, such as the run up to elections, tensions have been heightened”.
8. The FTT made no findings about the issues highlighted in paragraph [29] and in assessing any risk posed to him we were satisfied that such findings were necessary as these would then feed into whether ultimately he would now face a risk.
9. The decision of HN also contains an error in law as her article 8 claim is linked to the outcome of MH’s appeal. Both appeals must therefore be kept together.
10. Paragraph 7.2 of the Practice Statements for the Immigration and Asylum Chambers of the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal (the “Practice Statements”) recognises that it may not be possible for the Upper Tribunal to proceed to re-make the decision when it is satisfied that:
a. the effect of the error has been to deprive a party before the First-tier Tribunal of a fair hearing or other opportunity for that party’s case to be put to and considered by the First-tier Tribunal; or
b. the nature or extent of any judicial fact finding which is necessary in order for the decision in the appeal to be re-made is such that, having regard to the overriding objective in rule 2, it is appropriate to remit the case to the First-tier Tribunal.
11. Following a discussion with the representatives we find this is a case which should be remitted back to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing.
12. We issued the following directions for the disposal of this matter:
a. Matter to be listed before any Judge, other than Judge Farrelly, at the Manchester Hearing Centre.
b. Matter to be listed for 3 hours.
c. A Bengali interpreter is required.
Notice of Decision
There was an error in law and the decision of the FTT is set aside.

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Alis

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

17 July 2025