UI-2025-001583

  • Case title:  
  • Appellant name:
  • Status of case: Unreported
  • Hearing date:
  • Promulgation date:
  • Publication date:
  • Last updated on:
  • Country:
  • Judges:

The decision



IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-001583

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/50652/2024
LP/05271/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 5th of November 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PERKINS

Between

RAS
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Applicant
and

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent


This appeal was decided without a hearing pursuant to rule 34 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 at Field House on 24 October 2025.

Order Regarding Anonymity

The anonymity order made on 20 December 2024 is still in force.
No-one shall publish or reveal either directly or indirectly any information, including their names or their addresses, that is likely to lead members of the public to identify them. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court


DECISION AND REASONS

1. The appellant is a national of Iraq. He appealed a decision of the respondent on 20 December 2023 to refuse him international protection and his appeal was dismissed in a Decision and Reasons promulgated on 20 December 2024.
2. The main ground of appeal to the Upper Tribunal was that the Judge had erred by going behind a concession that if material facts were accepted the appellant would need protection in the event of his return and would NOT be able to avoid problems by internal relocation or by seeking protection form the state of Iraq.
3. Permission to appeal was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Jackson on 14 May 2025 who gave the following directions:
“The Respondent is required to file a Rule 24 notice in response to this appeal (within the usual one month period), which should include a clear statement as to whether the position in the decision letter that if the Appellant’s claim was accepted, he would be at risk on return and without sufficiency of protection and the option of internal relocation. If the position has changed, a full explanation must be given for the same and details as to whether this was raised before the Firsttier Tribunal. If it has not, the Respondent should indicate whether or not the error of law is opposed and whether the error of law and/or any re-making can be made on the papers.”
4. A rule 24 Notice signed by Miss Julie Isherwood, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer said, inter alia:
2. In line with the grant of permission issued by Judge Jackson on 22 May 2025 the SSHD accepts that the Judge materially erred in law.
3. The Refusal Letter accepted that if the material facts are accepted that the appellant would not have sufficiency of protection if returned to Iraq. At paragraph 21 of Judge Phillips decision the appellant’s account is accepted in its entirety.
4. In light of the error, it is accepted that a remaking can be done on the papers taking into account the above position.
5. It follows that the proper decision is to ALLOW the appellant’s appeal on refugee grounds, which I do.
Notice of Decision
6. The First-tier Tribunal erred in law. I set aside its decision and I substitute a decision allowing the appeal on refugee grounds.

Jonathan Perkins

Upper Tribunal Judge Perkins

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber


24 October 2025