UI-2025-002737

  • 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-2025-002737

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/02585/2024
PA/60505/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 8th of October 2025

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PARKES

Between

MK
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECTETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr A Jafar (Counsel)
For the Respondent: Mr B Hulme(Senior Home Office Presenting Officer)

Heard at Field House on 29 September 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, [the appellant] (and/or any member of his family, expert, witness or other person the Tribunal considers should not be identified) 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 other person). Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.


DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant is a citizen of Albania. His application for asylum, made by way of further submissions, was refused by the Respondent on the 2nd of April 2024. The Appellant's appeal was heard by Judge Ripley at Hatton Cross on the 30th of January 2025 and dismissed for the reasons given in the decision of the 18th of February 2025. The Appellant sought permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal from the Upper Tribunal following refusal by the First-tier Tribunal. Permission was granted on the 21st of June 2025.
2. The principal ground of complaint is that the Judge’s credibility assessment relied in part on a consideration of an unsigned witness statement. It is argued that this fundamentally undermined the credibility assessment and was procedurally unfair.
3. The Home Office served a rule 24 Reply on the 8th of August 2025. The Respondent accepts that the decision is materially flawed given the consideration of the unsigned witness statement and it is accepted that the decision should be set aside and remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for re-consideration.
4. Unfortunately this concession was not appreciated leading to a substantive listing in the Upper Tribunal. Mr Jafar only became aware of the Home Office rule 24 Reply shortly before the hearing but did not take issue with the disposal proposed. The full circumstances are not clear and he was advised that a costs application should be made with the full facts to the Resident Judge.
Notice of Decision
5. The decision of Judge Ripley of the 18th of February 2025 contains a material error of law and is set aside. This appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal at Hatton Cross for re-hearing with no findings preserved. Not to be heard by Judge Ripley.


Judge Parkes
Judge Parkes


Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber


29th September 2025