Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-002944
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/60705/2024
LP/14217/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision Issued:

24th of June 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BLUM

Between

M R
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms E Atas, counsel, instructed by Qore Legal Ltd
For the Respondent: Mr J Nappey, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION REMITTING APPPEAL TO FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL (IAC)
1. The appellant, a national of Ethiopia, appealed against the respondent’s decision dated 1 November 2023 refusing her protection and human rights claim. At her appeal hearing on 16 April 2025 before Judge of the First-tier Tribunal (IAC) Beg the appellant disavowed reliance on her protection claim and instead pursued her appeal based on her article 8 ECHR rights (with the focus on whether the ‘very significant obstacles’ threshold was met).
2. The First-tier Tribunal (IAC) dismissed the appeal by decision dated 20 June 2025. The Upper Tribunal granted the appellant permission to appeal the First-tier Tribunal (IAC)’s decision.
3. In a decision dated 9 November 2025 Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Kirk set aside the First-tier Tribunal (IAC)’s decision and retained the appeal to be remade in the Upper Tribunal. There was little reference in Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Kirk’s decision to the relationship between the appellant and MRT, the person now identified as the appellant’s partner. Judge Beg had accepted the relationship.
4. The hearing to remake the decision was listed for 10 June 2026. The issues to be determined at the remaking hearing identified in Ms Atar’s skeleton argument were (i) whether the ‘very significant obstacles’ test to integration was met by reference to the appellant’s sexual orientation; (ii) whether the appellant and MRT were in a genuine an subsisting relationship and, if so, (iii) whether the appellant’s removal would constitute a disproportionate interference with the appellant’s Article 8 ECHR rights. At the hearing on 10 June 2026 Mr Nappey, a Senior Presenting Officer, formally conceded that MRT is in a genuine and subsisting relationship with the appellant after having considered the documents in the appellant’s bundle.
5. The appellant’s bundle of documents included a statement from MRT dated 17 March 2025 in which MRT stated that she had sought asylum and had an appeal pending before the First-tier Tribunal (IAC) in June 2025 (PA-61547-2023). Following my initial inquiries concerning MRT’s asylum and human rights appeal I was informed by Ms Atas that:
(i) MRT’s protection claim had been advanced on the basis of her fear of loan sharks;
(ii) Deputy Upper Tribunal Ripley set aside the First-tier Tribunal (IAC)’s decision and remitted MRT’s appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (IAC) (UI-2025-005135).
(iii) No hearing date had been set by the First-tier Tribunal (IAC).
6. It was my understanding from the information provided by counsel that MRT still had a protection claim pending before the First-tier Tribunal (IAC). It was on this basis that I indicated I would adjourn the remaking hearing to enable the First-tier Tribunal (IAC) to determine MRT’s protection claim as this would have a material bearing on the article 8 ECHR grounds advanced by the appellant.
7. Following the hearing I had an opportunity to consider the relevant decisions of Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Ripley. It became apparent from Judge Ripley’s decision dated 21 January 2026 that MRT had a protection and human right claim refused by the respondent and her appeal was dismissed by judge of the First-tier Tribunal (IAC) Ruth on 29 September 2025. Judge Ruth rejected MRT’s account of being at risk from loan sharks and rejected MRT’s claim to be lesbian and in a relationship with the appellant. Judge Ruth found MRT would not face very significant obstacles to her integration in the Philippines and there was no breach of article 8 ECHR. The only issue before the Upper Tribunal in MRT’s appeal related to Judge Ruth’s failure to apply the Devaseelan principles (Devaseelan (Second Appeals – ECHR – Extra-Territorial Effect) Sri Lanka* [2002] UKIAT 00702) to Judge Beg’s decision in which she accepted the appellant and MRT were in a genuine relationship. There was no challenge to Judge Ruth’s findings on the Refugee Convention reason or MRT’s fear of loan sharks. In a further decision issued on 17 February 2026 Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Ripley remitted MRT’s appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (IAC) as the respondent maintained her challenge to MRT’s sexual orientation and her relationship with the appellant.
8. In these circumstances I consider it appropriate to hold a Case Management Review Hearing;
(i) To enable to respondent to clarify her position in respect of the appellant’s relationship with MRT;
(ii) To consider whether it is appropriate for the appellant’s appeal to be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal (IAC) and joined with MRT’s appeal currently pending before the First-tier Tribunal (IAC).
9. At the Case Management Review Hearing on 18 June 2026 (at which Ms Atas attended remotely) Mr Nappey formally conceded (i) that the appellant is in a genuine and subsisting relationship with MRT, (ii) that MRT is lesbian. Mr Nappey explained that the contrary position previously held by the respondent was reached when there was less evidence available in support of the relationship. Mr Nappey confirmed that the genuineness of the relationship was now conceded in MRT’s appeal before the First-tier Tribunal (IAC).
10. It was agreed by both representatives that the appellant’s appeal should now be remitted back to the First-tier Tribunal (IAC) to be linked with MRT’s appeal and to be heard and determined at the same time and before the same judge. This is because the issues in both appeals are virtually identical - (i) whether the ‘very significant obstacles’ test to integration was met by reference to the sexual orientation of the appellant and MRT; (ii) whether the removal of the appellant and MRT would constitute a disproportionate interference with their individual Article 8 ECHR rights and their relational article 8 ECHR rights. I have reached the decision to remit by reference to Part 3 paragraph 7.2(b) of the Upper Tribunal Practice Statement of the 18 June 2018.

Notice of Decision
The appeal will be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal (IAC) to determine the issues identified at (i) and (ii) in [10] above, by a judge other than judges Ruth or Beg.
The appeal will be linked with that of MRT (PA-61547-2023) to be heard together before the same judge.

D. Blum

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

18 June 2026