UI-2025-002359

  • Case title:  
  • Appellant name:
  • Status of case: Unreported
  • Hearing date:
  • Promulgation date:
  • Publication date:
  • Last updated on:
  • Country:
  • Judges:

The decision



IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
UI-2025-002359

[PA/66336/2023]

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decided without a hearing
Decision & Reasons Issued:
On the 11 August 2025


Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BLUNDELL

Between

PK
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRTARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant is granted anonymity. It is appropriate to continue in force the anonymity direction made by the First-tier Tribunal because the appellant is an asylum seeker.

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. I granted permission in this case on 1 July although my decision was only sealed and sent to the parties on 15 July. I was persuaded that the First-tier Tribunal had arguably erred in law by proceeding on the basis that the appellant was an adult born in 2001, when a panel of the Upper Tribunal concluded in judicial review proceedings brought by the appellant that he was born in 2005. The significance of the argument is that the appellant arrived in the UK and claimed asylum in 2022; if he was a child at that point, that was relevant to the assessment of his credibility.
2. By a response to the grounds of appeal dated 23 July 2025, the respondent accepted that the FtT had erred in law for this reason and that its decision fell to be set aside and the appeal remitted to be heard afresh by that tribunal.
3. By a rule 25 reply dated 25 July 2025, the appellant accepted that the proper course was as proposed by the respondent.
4. Neither party sought to engage with the potential legal complexity which I identified in my decision granting permission to appeal, and I am satisfied that it is not necessary for the Upper Tribunal to do so. If the respondent is prepared to accept, as she seemingly is, that the decision in the judicial review proceedings was determinative of the appellant’s age, then I am content to proceed on the basis that the FtT erred (through no fault of the judge’s) in reaching the contrary conclusion. That is certainly a practical and pragmatic solution to the problem I identified in the grant of permission.
5. There is no need to hold a hearing when the parties are ad idem as to the result and the appropriate relief. I will therefore make the order which I am invited by both parties to make without further ado.
Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal was vitiated by legal error and is hereby set aside. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard afresh by a different judge.


Mark Blundell

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber


5 August 2025