Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-001803

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/63538/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 16th January 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CONNAL

Between

MS
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Price, Latta & Co Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms Blackburn, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Edinburgh on 10 September 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant and/or any member of their family 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 and/or any member of their family. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
Introduction
1. The Appellant appeals the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 3 March 2025 (the FTT Decision), following a hearing which took place on 20 January 2025. In the FTT Decision, the First-tier Tribunal Judge (the Judge) dismissed the Appellant’s appeal against the Respondent’s refusal of his claim for protection.
2. Permission to appeal was granted by the First-tier Tribunal on 23 April 2025.
Anonymity
3. An anonymity direction was previously made in the First-tier Tribunal. This is a protection appeal, and it is appropriate for such a direction to be continued.
Background
4. The Appellant applied for protection in the United Kingdom on 29 December 2020. As set out in the grounds of appeal, the Appellant is a national of Zimbabwe and, among other matters, he relied on being at real risk from ZANU-PF who he said were targeting him as he owned a mine and supermarket and also due to his family’s association with the MDC.
5. The Appellant’s application was refused by the Respondent in a decision dated 15 November 2023. In relation to the Appellant’s protection claim, and among other matters, the Respondent accepted the Appellant’s identity and nationality, but did not accept that the Appellant was of adverse interest to ZANU-PF (or that his wife was persecuted as a result of her religion). The Respondent did not accept that the Appellant was at real risk on return but conceded that, if the key material facts of the Appellant’s claim were accepted, then there would not be sufficient protection from persecution, and internal relocation would not be an option for the Appellant. The Respondent also found that removal of the Appellant would not be contrary to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
6. The Respondent’s position was maintained in a review dated 16 October 2024.
The FTT Decision
7. In the FTT Decision, the Tribunal set out the background to the appeal and the issues as identified in the papers, and confirmed that oral evidence had been heard from the Appellant and his wife, and submissions heard from the representatives. The Tribunal then set out its findings.
8. In relation to the Appellant’s claim for protection, and for the reasons set out, the Tribunal’s findings included that: the Appellant had not demonstrated that he faced a real risk of persecution on return; the Appellant had not established his claim of past persecution or that he was credible; however, if any aspects of the Appellant’s claim were credible, then he could safely and reasonably relocate within the country, and the State would afford him adequate protection. The Tribunal also found that the family were not entitled to protection because of the Appellant’s wife’s religion.
9. In addition, the Tribunal’s further findings included that: it was in the best interests of the Appellant’s son to be with both parents and to return to Zimbabwe; there would be no breaches of Articles 2 or 3 of the ECHR if the family were returned; the family did not meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules; and the Respondent’s decision was proportionate.

The appeal to the Upper Tribunal
10. The grounds of appeal can be summarised briefly as follows:
a. Ground 1 – Credibility: The Tribunal failed to take into account the explanations provided by the Appellant and his wife in their appeal statements regarding the claimed inconsistencies in their evidence; or, if those explanations were taken into account, the Tribunal failed to explain how those explanations had been assessed and, if rejected, why they were rejected. The Tribunal further failed to make any new findings as to how the oral evidence of the Appellant and his wife had been assessed.
b. Ground 2 – Documentary evidence: The Tribunal failed to explain whether the medical report was found to be reliable and, if it was found not to be reliable, why this was found. Further, in finding that there were no other documents to support the claim, the Tribunal failed to take account of the police report, the photograph of the dead body of the Appellant’s cousin, or the letter from Rape Crisis; or, if those documents were taken into account, the Tribunal failed to explain why it was said there were no other documents to support the claim and/or how those documents had been assessed.
c. Ground 3 – Risk / Sufficiency of Protection / Internal flight: The Tribunal had gone behind the concessions made by the Respondent that, if the Appellant’s account was credible, the Appellant would be at real risk, there would be an insufficiency of protection, and internal flight would not be reasonable.
11. Permission to appeal was granted on all three grounds.
12. The Respondent did not file a Rule 24 response.
The error of law hearing
13. The matter comes before the Upper Tribunal to determine whether the decision contains an error of law and, if it is so concluded, to either re-make the decision or to remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal to do so. A bundle was submitted by the Appellant’s representatives containing, among other documents, the core documents and bundles before the First-tier Tribunal, the FTT Decision, and the grounds of appeal.
14. The hearing was attended by representatives for both parties. At the outset of the hearing, the Respondent’s representative confirmed that the Respondent conceded that there was a material error of law in the FTT Decision on all three grounds. I communicated that I was prepared to accept that concession, which I would not seek to go behind.
15. In relation to the disposal of the matter, the representatives were in agreement that the appeal should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard de novo. I communicated my agreement with that proposal.
16. The FTT Decision is to be set aside in its entirety pursuant to section 12(2)(a) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The appropriate course is for the appeal to be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for hearing afresh, with no findings preserved.

Notice of Decision
1. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal contains a material error on a point of law, and is set aside. No findings are preserved.
2. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for hearing afresh, by a judge other than Judge Farrelly or Judge Connal.
3. There is an anonymity direction in place.
4. The parties will be notified of a fresh hearing date by the First-tier Tribunal in due course.

L.C. Connal
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
12 January 2026