Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-001698

First-tier Tribunal No:
PA/50315/2024
LP/01663/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 26th of September 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RUDDICK

Between

AQ
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Appeal Determined without a hearing pursuant to Rule 34
of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008

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 is a citizen of Iraq who has made a claim for international protection. The respondent refused his claim on 22 December 2023, and his appeal against the refusal came before the First-tier Tribunal (“FTT”) on 11 February 2025. The FTT dismissed the appeal, but on 11 April 2025, another judge of the FTT granted permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal. The grant of permission noted that:
“2. The first ground asserts that the Judge erred in misunderstanding the evidence given at the hearing, on a number of key issues. It is said that her record of the evidence was incomplete or inaccurate. Consequently the ‘inconsistencies’ which led to the finding that the Appellant’s credibility was damaged, were not inconsistencies in reality.
“3. Notes from the hearing have been adduced to support the point. On the basis that these notes are accurate, I consider it to be arguable that an error of law has occurred. Namely, reaching findings that were not based on the actual evidence given. I would however, suggest the obtaining of a transcript from the audio recording of the hearing, so that the accuracy of he notes can be verified for any error of law consideration by the Upper Tribunal.”
2. The appeal was then placed before Upper Tribunal Judge Perkins for listing instructions and directions to be issued. On 6 May 2025, Judge Perkins made the following directions, which were sent to the parties on 12 May 2025:
“2. The appellant has been given permission to appeal a decision of the First-tier Tribunal. An important reason for permission being granted is that it is arguable that the First-tier Tribunal Judge misunderstood the evidence. This contention is supported by detailed notes from counsel who appeared in the First-tier Tribunal.
“3. No later than 14 days after receiving this Memorandum and Directions the respondent shall indicate to the Tribunal if it is accepted that the judge erred as alleged.
“4. If the alleged error is not accepted then BOTH parties must take reasonable steps to arrange a joint hearing of any recording of the hearing that the First-tier Tribunal may have.
“5. The parties should then file with the Tribunal an agreed note of any relevant part of the record of hearing.
“6. The parties are reminded that they are at liberty to apply jointly or severally for these Directions to be amended but if they are ignore[d] the Tribunal may decide that the appeal is not opposed because the appellant’s contention that the judge misunderstood the evidence is made out.”
3. The respondent did not comply with these directions, and on 4 September 2025 (more than three months after the deadline set by Judge Perkins), Upper Tribunal Judge Norton-Taylor issued further directions. These began:
“1. I issue the following directions further to the Memorandum and Directions of UTJ Perkins, sent out on 12 May 2025. Thus far, the respondent has failed to comply with the directions of Judge Perkins. Any further non-compliance may result in further action being taken.
“(1) No later than 4pm on 18 September 2025, the respondent shall file with the Tribunal and serve on the appellant a rule 24 response. That response must include confirmation of whether the alleged error of law set out in the grounds and referred to by Judge Perkins is accepted or not;”
4. On 23 September 2025, the matter was placed before me, no Rule 24 response or other acknowledgment of the directions having been received from the respondent.
5. I note that on 12 May 2025, the respondent was directed to respond to the grant of permission by the FTT by clarifying its position as to the factual claim that formed the basis of the grant, namely that the FTT judge who dismissed the appeal had misunderstood the evidence. She was put on notice at the same time that a failure to respond could be taken as an indication that the respondent did not oppose the appeal. The respondent has now had more than four months to comply with these directions, has been reminded of them, and continues to choose not to do so.
6. In accordance with Judge Perkins’ directions issued on 12 May 2025, I therefore consider that respondent does not oppose this appeal. It would have been more in compliance with her duty to assist the Tribunal to have complied with directions and to have stated so expressly, and sooner, rather than requiring the Tribunal to infer her position from her prolonged silence. At this point, however, it is in accordance with the overriding objective to dispense with a hearing that would serve no purpose (the appeal being unopposed) and to set the decision of the FTT aside on the basis that it made a series of material errors about the content of the appellant’s evidence.
Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 25 February 2025 is set aside in its entirety and the appeal is remitted to the First-tier tribunal for a fresh hearing on all issues, before any other judge.

E. Ruddick

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

24 September 2025