Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-002575
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/02949/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

14th August 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RASTOGI

Between

SG
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Rule 34 Decision at Field House on 4 August 2026

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.

DECISION AND REASONS

1. By way of a decision sealed on 7 August 2025 Upper Tribunal Judge O’Brien granted the appellant permission to appeal the decision of the First-tier Tribunal ("FTT") dated 21 March 2025. He did so on the basis that he found it arguable that the FTT overlooked evidence which the appellant had sent in by special delivery on 5 November 2024 and her re-submitted notice of appeal of 9 July 2024. Accordingly, Judge O’Brien considered it arguable that the appellant was deprived of a fair hearing due to a procedural irregularity.

2. Judge O’Brien indicated his provisional view that holding an error of law hearing would not be proportionate, and instead, the appeal could be allowed on the papers and remitted to the FTT. Accordingly, he directed the respondent to indicate within 14 days whether she agreed that course of action.

3. Unfortunately the respondent overlooked that direction until 24 June 2026 whereupon Mr Terrell took ownership of it. He supplied a Rule 24 notice dated 24 July 2026 in which he confirmed that the respondent agreed the FTT had erred in law. The relevant part reads:

“The Respondent has no reason to doubt that the evidence and resubmitted grounds rereferred to by UTJ O’Brien were filed with the FtT (albeit not served on the Respondent). It is not clear why FtTJ M B Hussain was unaware of the above referenced materials or why the Appellant did not attend the hearing. Ultimately however, the Respondent would agree with UTJ O’Brien’s provisional view that the failure of the FtT to consider the above referenced materials amounted to an error of law. Whether that is characterised as a procedural irregularly or perhaps a failure to take account of relevant evidence, the result is that the decision of the FtT cannot stand and ought to be set aside for a de novo hearing. The Respondent would further not oppose the appeal being remitted to the FtT.”

Rule 34 Decision

4. Given the respondent’s stance as outlined above and mindful that the parties were given notice that the appeal could be determined on the papers, I am satisfied it is just and proportionate to proceed under rule 34.

Discussion

5. Having carefully considered the papers in this matter, I agree with Judge O’Brien and the respondent as to the FTT materially erring in law by failing to have regard to material evidence giving rise to procedural irregularity and depriving the appellant of a fair hearing.

Remaking the Decision

6. I observe the guidance in Begum (Remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 0046 (IAC). Given that the appellant was deprived of a fair hearing, the remaking of the decision in this matter should properly be undertaken by the FTT with no preserved findings.

7. As to the scope of the remaking, I note what Mr Terrell has said at paragraph 4 of the Rule 24 notice as follows:

“the Respondent would note that the Appellant’s resubmitted grounds of appeal appear to bear little resemblance to the claim that she advanced in her witness statement, skeleton argument or to the SSHD. Bearing in mind the suggestion in the original grounds that she struggles with English, it may be the case that she is not the true author of them. In any event and to the extent that the Appellant does now seek to pursue a claim for political asylum, it would likely require the consent of the SSHD pursuant to S85 NIAA 2002. That however will likely be a matter for the FtT.”

8. I simply note this again for the appellant’s benefit so that she can decide for herself how she is to present her case at the FTT and whether to take any legal advice.

Notice of Decision

1. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 21 March 2025 is set aside because it contains a material error of law.

2. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard by a different judge with no preserved findings.

SJ Rastogi
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

4 August 2026