UI-2025-002582

  • 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 Case No: UI-2025-002582
First-tier Tribunal No: HU/00485/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 11th March 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PERKINS

Between

KALSOON RANI
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Done at Field House on 10 March 2026
without a hearing pursuant to rule 34 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008


DECISION AND REASONS

1. The Appellant appeals a decision of the First-tier Tribunal on 26 March 2025 dismissing her appeal against a decision of the respondent on 5 February 2023 refusing her leave to remain on human rights grounds.
2. Permission was given to appeal to the Upper Tribunal because the Judge in the First-tier Tribunal determined the case in the absence of the appellant, not realising that neither the appellant nor her representatives had been told about the hearing.
3. The appeal was listed to be heard on 11 March 2026.
4. On the afternoon of 10 March 2026 the respondent notified that Tribunal that:
“The SSHD is emailing to inform the tribunal they no longer oppose this appeal. There is one Ground of Appeal and following checks the SSHD accepts it is a material error. The position is that this appeal should be remitted to the FTT de novo. The SSHD wishes for the Judge to be informed of this position as soon as possible to prevent any unnecessary work on this appeal. If this could be done it would be much appreciated. I hope this hearing can be taken off the list following this concession.”
5. Clearly an error of law was established.
6. It is the appellant’s case that she did not have a fair hearing. There can be no sensible objection to the case being heard again in the First-tier Tribunal. Indeed, absent extraordinary circumstances of a kind that are not alleged here, it is hard to see how any other disposal would be appropriate.
7. It is immaterial that the appeal has been remitted previously. The appellant has not had a fair hearing and she is entitled to one.

Notice of Decision

8. The First-tier Tribunal erred in law. I set aside its decision and I direct that appeal be heard again in the First-tier Tribunal by a Judge who has not previously heard the appeal.



Jonathan Perkins

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber


10 March 2026