Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-001787

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/68400/2023
LP/07233/2024
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 12th of September 2025

Before
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PICKERING

Between
WR
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Wood, a solicitor
For the Respondent: Ms Young, a Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Phoenix House (Bradford) on 28 July 2025

DECISION AND REASONS

1. The appellant is an Iraqi national born in 1990. He appeals with permission against the First-tier Tribunal dismiss his appeal on protection grounds

Basis of the claim
2. The basis of the appellant’s fear of returning to Iraq threefold. Firstly in 2015 he was targeted by ISIS. Secondly when the appellant was in Finland he had a relationship with the daughter of a person connected to the KDP. The final part of the appellant's claim is that since he arrived in the UK he has engaged in demonstrations against the Iraqi government. The appellant further claimed that he did not have access to his Civil Status Identity Document (CSID) and could not redocument within a reasonable timescale on return.

Grounds of appeal
3. The appellant has permission to appeal the decision of the First-tier on four grounds. In summary those grounds are as follows.
4. Ground 1 relates to procedural irregularity. It is averred that having orally agreed at the hearing to treat the appellant as a vulnerable adult witness on the basis of his mental health the Judge then did not go on to explain how, if at all the vulnerability impacted on the assessment of the appellant’s evidence.
5. Ground 2 relates to procedural irregularity on a different front by not allowing the appelant6 to respond to points not raised by the respondent.
6. Ground 3 relates to the sur place part of the appellant’s claim. It is said that the Judge erred in failing to make a finding as to whether the appellant’s activities were due to a genuine political belief.
7. Ground 4 avers that the Judge has not provided adequate reasons for findings about redocumentation. The Judge have seemingly accepted that the appellant did not have access to his CSID as it was with the Finnish authorities the Judge did not explain how the appellant would be able to redocument within a reasonable timescale.

The Error of Law Hearing
8. At the start of the hearing I raised with Ms Young and Mr Wood an issue relating to ground 1. I noted that it was said that there had been agreement that the start of the hearing before the First-tier Tribunal that the appellant would be treated as vulnerable. This was not recorded in the determination. It was unclear to me whether this agreement was in issue between the parties as I had not for example had sight of any notes from the advocates at the hearing or been provided with the record of proceedings.
9. Ms Young had very helpfully pre-empted this issue and had been in discussions with Mr Wood the day prior. She explained that having had access to the presenting officer’s notes from the hearing before the First-tier that there had been an unopposed application for the appellant to be treated as a vulnerable adult witness. She said that there was clear evidence before the First-tier Tribunal about the appellant’s medical issues. She confirmed me that the parties were of the view that there was material error of law in the decision and given that the error went to procedural unfairness they was also agreement that the disposal would involve the decision being set aside and remitted to the First-tier Tribunal.
10. As expressed at the hearing I am very grateful for the way in which the parties pro-actively approached the appeal before me and I accept their submissions as to the error of law. It is in my view a concession quite properly given from the respondent.
11. Joint Presidential Guidance Note No 2 of 2010: Child, vulnerable adult and sensitive appellant guidance (Guidance Note No 2) gives guidance to the First-tier in how to approach decisions of vulnerability. At paragraph 15 of that Guidance it explains that the determination of the Tribunal should record whether the Tribunal has concluded that the appellant is vulnerable and when assessing the evidence and what effect, if any the identified vulnerability had when assessing the appellant’s evidence.
12. AM(Afghanistan) [2017] EWCA Civ 1123 §30 explains that failure to follow guidance, such as Guidance Note No 2 will most likely be an error of law.
13. The determination of the First-tier does not record that the appellant was to be treated as a vulnerable adult witness, nor does it explain what the consequence of that vulnerability decision was to the hearing of the appeal and the treatment of the evidence.
14. I have not felt it necessary to express a view about the grounds 2-4 as the error in ground 1 has impacted the assessment of the remaining grounds.

Disposal
15. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside due to an error of law.
16. I accept the submissions of the parties as to disposal. I recognise that remaking rather than remitting would ordinarily be the approach. However on the basis of ground 1 the appellant has been deprived of a fair hearing and that is why it is appropriate to remit the appeal.
17. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to he heard by a different Judge.
18. There is currently an order for anonymity in place as this is an ongoing protection appeal.

RA Pickering

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

5 September 2015