Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: UI-2025-001759
PA/52619/2023
LP/02780/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Determined without a hearing Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 26 March 2026 On 26 March 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE OWENS

Between

EA
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

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 pubic 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 against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 14 February 2025 dismissing the appellant’s appeal against a decision to refuse his protection and human rights claim.
2. The appellant is a citizen of Albania who is a victim of trafficking who claims that he will be at risk of being re-trafficked on his return to Albania.
3. The grounds asserted that the judge acted unfairly by making adverse credibility findings on matters not put to the appellant; the judge failed to apply the country guidance of TD and AD (Trafficked women) CG [2016] UKUT 92 (IAC) when assessing risk; failed to consider material evidence; made unreasonable or irrational findings; and failed to consider the question of vulnerability in accordance with Joint Presidential Guidance Note no 2 of 2010.
4. On 16 March 2025 permission was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Lodato on all grounds.
5. On 3 June 2025 in a rule 24 response the respondent conceded that there had been procedural unfairness and that this rendered the decision unsafe in its entirety.
6. On 22 September 2025 the Tribunal issued directions to both parties asking whether they consented to the decision being set aside with no findings preserved, the decision being made without a hearing or written reasons. It was directed that if neither party responded within 14 days of the service of the notice that the matter would be set aside and remitted to the First-tire tribunal for a de novo hearing and that the directions dated 22 September 2025 would stand as notice of that decision.
7. On 17 October 2025 the respondent submitted a brief position statement agreeing to the above course of action.
8. Unfortunately it seems that there was an administrative oversight in the Tribunal and the directions dated 22 September 2025 were not issued as the decision setting aside the decision and remitting to the First-tier Tribunal
9. It is agreed by both parties that the decision should be set aside in its entirely without a hearing and remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing with no written reasons given. This is the appropriate course of action given that the respondent accepts that the hearing before the First-tier Tribunal was unfair.
10. It is not appropriate to make a wasted costs order against the respondent, because the delay was caused by an administrative oversight on the part of the Tribunal, the respondent acted promptly to concede the appeal and has not acted unreasonably in bringing, defending or conducting the proceedings.

Notice of Decision
11. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error of law.
12. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside, and the findings of the First-tier Tribunal are set aside in their entirety.
13. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard de novo by a judge other than First-tier Tribunal Judge Hussain.

Signed Date: 26 March 2025

R J Owens
Upper Tribunal Judge Owens