UI-2025-002794

  • 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-2025-002794

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/68296/2023
LP/01333/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 10th September 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MAHMOOD

Between

AO
(ANONYMITY ORDER CONTINUED)
Appellant
and

The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr J Dingley of Counsel instructed by Elder Rahimi Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms Z Young, a Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Phoenix House (Bradford) on 27 August 2025


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. The parties may apply on notice to vary this order.


DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant, a national of Iraq appeals against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Caswell (“the Judge”) dated 14 March 2025, whereby she had dismissed the Appellant’s appeal based on protection and human rights grounds.
2. First-tier Tribunal Judge T Lawrence had granted the Appellant permission to appeal by way of a decision dated 26 June 2025. The learned First-tier Tribunal Judge had said when granting permission on all grounds as follows,
“It is arguable that the judge materially erred in law in their consideration of the Appellant’s credibility, for the reasons stated in the grounds. “
3. At the remote hearing before me, Ms Young on behalf of the Secretary of State conceded that there was a material error of law in the Judge’s decision. She said that there were inadequate findings made by the Judge and that it was not clear what the Judge was referring to when she said that there were ‘so many other discrepancies’ because such discrepancies had not been set out. Ms Young said that the Judge’s decision ought to be set aside and that there be a de novo hearing at the First-tier Tribunal before a different judge.
4. Mr Dingley agreed with the submissions made by Ms Young.
5. I consider that the concession made by the Secretary of State is correctly made. There is a material error of law in the Judge’s decision due to inadequate reasoning. I must therefore set aside the Judge’s decision.
6. Applying AEB [2022] EWCA Civ 1512 and Begum (Remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 00046 (IAC) and the general principle set out in statement 7 of the Senior President’s Practice Statement, I remit the matter for rehearing at the First-tier Tribunal.

Notice of Decision
The Decision of the First-tier Tribunal contains a material error of law and is set aside.
There shall be a complete rehearing on all issues at the First-tier Tribunal.
The anonymity direction is continued.

Abid Mahmood

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

27 August 2025