UI-2025-002780

• Status of case: Unreported
• Hearing date: 20 Apr 2026
• Promulgation date: 23 Apr 2026
• Publication date: 11 May 2026
• Last updated on: 11 May 2026

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-002780
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/53835/2024
LP/03400/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 23rd of April 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KAMARA

Between

SRS
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Considered on the papers

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
Introduction
1. By way of a decision of the Upper Tribunal dated 25 July 2025, the appellant has been granted permission to appeal the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing his appeal following a hearing which took place on 31 March 2025.
2. This matter has been considered on the papers in order to avoid wasting the parties’ resources in considering this matter at an oral hearing.
Anonymity
3. I have continued the anonymity order made by the First-Tier Tribunal.  I have considered the public interest in open justice but conclude that it is outweighed by the importance of facilitating the discharge of the United Kingdom’s obligations to those claiming international protection because of the need for confidentiality.  
The appeal to the Upper Tribunal
4. There were three grounds of appeal. Permission to appeal was granted on the basis sought. The judge granting permission stated as follows:
It is arguable that the FTT erred by not taking into account that the appellant’s young age when finding his credibility had been damaged by not mentioning his fear of QK on his arrival to the UK. He is accepted to have been 15 years old at the time. (Ground One).
It is arguable that the FTT made a material error of fact in finding that the expert said that QK was serving a long prison sentence. It appears to be correct that the FTT misread the report, which says that QK may have left Iraq and his whereabouts are unknown. (Ground Two). Although the grounds challenge the FTT’s finding that the appellant had “made up” evidence relating to QK under the heading of Ground One, it is arguable that the basis of the finding that the evidence had been made up was that the mistaken belief that QK was in prison, and that this finding must necessarily fall away if the FTT was wrong about that.
It is arguable that in the FTT erred in finding that the appellant would have access to support from his father on return to Iraq, given that the respondent had accepted that the appellant had been a victim of abuse from his stepfather. The accepted fact that the appellant was at risk from his father as well as his stepmother does not appear to have been taken into account anywhere in the decision.
5. The respondent filed a Rule 24 response dated 20 August 2025, in which the appeal was not opposed. Relevant content of that letter is replicated below.
The SSHD will be conceding this appeal on as it is accepted that the FTTJ materially erred in their determination and ground 2 and 3 are accepted as material errors. For completeness, the SSHD did not find that ground 1 amounts to an error of law and this is detailed below.
The SSHD is content for the FTTJ decision to be set aside without any preserved findings.
Given the anxious scrutiny required in protection appeals and in considering the principles arising from Begum (remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 00046, the Tribunal is invited to remit the appeal to the FTT for a de novo hearing.
6. The Upper Tribunal accepts that the errors identified in the grounds of appeal is both made out and material, in that the appeal was dismissed after the judge appeared to have misread the expert report and there was a lack of engagement when considering what support was available to the appellant in Iraq, with his unchallenged evidence that he had been abused by his stepfather.
7. As the appeal turns on the credibility of the appellant’s protection claim, I consider that none of the findings of the First-tier Tribunal can be safely retained.
8. Both parties are of the view that this matter ought to be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal or retained in the Upper Tribunal for remaking. Applying AEB [2022] EWCA Civ 1512 and Begum (Remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 00046 (IAC), I carefully consider whether to retain the matter for remaking in the Upper Tribunal, in line with the general principle set out in statement 7 of the Senior President’s Practice Statements. I take into consideration the history of this case, the nature and extent of the findings to be made as well as the fact that the nature of the errors of law in this case meant that the appellant was deprived of an adequate consideration of his protection appeal. I further consider that it would be unfair for either party to be unable to avail themselves of the two-tier decision-making process and therefore remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.
Notice of Decision
The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did involve the making of an error on a point of law.
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside.
The appeal is remitted, de novo, to the First-tier Tribunal to be reheard by a different judge.


T Kamara

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

20 April 2026