Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case Nos: UI-2025-001763

First-tier Tribunal No:
PA/67266/2023
LP/00542/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 28 November 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MAHMOOD

Between

AJI
Appellant
and

The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellants: Ms Kalyan of Counsel, instructed by MH Solicitors LLP
For the Respondent: Mr P Lawson, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at the Birmingham Civil Justice Centre on 23 September 2025

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. The parties may apply on notice to vary this order.

DECISION AND REASONS
Introduction
1. This is my oral decision which I delivered at the hearing today.
2. The Appellant, a national of Iraq, appeals with permission against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Beg (“the Judge”) who by way of a decision dated 25 February 2025 had dismissed his appeal and protection and human rights grounds.
3. The Appellant had relied on grounds of appeal drafted by counsel who had attended the hearing which included that the Judge has overlooked material evidence which had supported the Appellant’s claim.
4. Permission to appeal had been granted by First-tier Tribunal Judge Gumsley by way of a decision dated 22 April 2025 on all grounds.
5. At the hearing before me today Mr Lawson on behalf of the Respondent conceded that the Judge’s decision contained a material error of law and had to be set aside. He agreed with the Appellant’s grounds of appeal.
6. Ms Kalyan had provided a helpful speaking note setting out her arguments and which Mr Lawson had seen.
7. In my judgment, the concession made by Mr Lawson has been correctly made. The Judge did not take material evidence into consideration and had she done so then the decision may have been different. Similarly, the findings in respect of the ability to return and in respect of CSID and documents were flawed findings for the reasons agreed by Mr Lawson.
8. It is not necessary therefore to set out the matters in any greater detail in view of the Respondent’s concession, properly made.
9. I have considered whether or not this is a matter which ought to remain for consideration here at the Upper Tribunal or be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal. Applying AEB [2022] EWCA Civ 1512 and Begum (Remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 00046 (IAC), I consider whether to retain the matter for remaking here at the Upper Tribunal, in line with the general principle set out in statement 7 of the Senior President’s Practice Statement. I take into account the history of this case, the nature and extent of findings to be made as well as the nature of the errors in this case. I further consider it would be unfair for either party to be unable to avail themselves of the two-tier decision-making process. I conclude that the appropriate decision in this case is that I remit the matter to the First-tier Tribunal for rehearing afresh with no retained findings.
Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal contains a material error of law.
The matter will be considered afresh at the First-tier Tribunal on all issues with no retained findings.
The Anonymity Order is continued.

Abid Mahnood

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

23 September 2025