Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-001491
UI-2025-001493, UI-2025-001494

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/57753/2024,
PA/57741/2024, PA/57756/2024
LP/06107/2024
LP/06106/2024, LP/06105/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 19th of September 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE McWILLIAM

Between

BL, C1, C2
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)

Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant and her children are granted anonymity. The appellant shall be referred to by the initials BL and her children shall be referred to as C1 and C2 throughout these proceedings.
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 her children. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

ERROR OF LAW
1. The appellants appeal with permission of First tier Tribunal Judge Athwal against the decision of First- tier Tribunal Judge Chana (‘the judge’), dated 13 February 2025, dismissing their protection and human rights claims. First-tier Tribunal Judge Athwal granted permission to the appellants. .
2. UTJ Loughran made directions having considered the response under 24 rule of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (“Upper Tribunal Procedure Rules”). The respondent does not oppose the appellant’s application for permission to appeal and invites the Upper Tribunal to determine the appellant's appeal afresh in the Upper Tribunal or remit the matter to the First-tier Tribunal to consider the issues of the original appeal.
3. UTJ’s directions read as follows:
1. It is my preliminary view that, in light of the respondent’s concession that the appropriate course is:
a. To set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal, in its entirety, with no findings of fact preserved; and
b. Remit the decision to the First-tier Tribunal, to be heard afresh, by a different judge.
2. Unless within ten working days of the issue of these directions there is any written objection to this course of action, supported by cogent argument, the Upper Tribunal will proceed to determine the appeal without an oral hearing and will remit it to the First-tier Tribunal.
3. In the absence of a timely response by a party, it will be presumed that it has no objection to the course of action proposed.
4. The parties have not responded to directions within ten working days.
5. I find an material error of law for the following reasons ( as conceded by the respondent):
(1) the judge acted with procedural unfairness by rejecting aspects of the appellant’s account, that had been accepted by the respondent without those matters being put to the appellant and that
(2) the judge’s findings in respect of Article 8 ECHR are also flawed because they were made on the same premise and the judge failed to provide reasons for not having regard to the evidence from the appellant’s psychologist.
6. I set aside the decision of Judge Chana and remit the matter to the First-tier Tribunal for a re-hearing.

Joanna McWilliam
Upper Tribunal Judge McWilliam
15 September 2025