Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-002961
First-tier Tribunal No: HU/64896/2023
LH/00163/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
25th June 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KAMARA

Between

Inayat Begum
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: No appearance
For the Respondent: Ms R Arif, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Birmingham Civil Justice Centre on 19 June 2026

DECISION AND REASONS
Introduction
1. The appellant has been granted permission to appeal the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing her human rights appeal following a hearing which took place on 22 April 2025.
2. Permission to appeal was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Lindsley on 4 August 2025.
Anonymity
3. The First-tier Tribunal did not issue an anonymity order. I take into account the principle of open justice and see no reason to make an order, so none is made.

Factual Background
4. The appellant is a national of Pakistan now aged 78, who entered the United Kingdom on a visit visa on 19 December 2022. A day before her leave expired, the appellant made a human rights application under Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR. That application was refused by way of a decision dated 15 December 2023, which is the decision under appeal.
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal
5. At the hearing before the First-tier Tribunal, counsel on behalf of the appellant pursued an Article 3 medical ground as well as claims on private and family life grounds. The judge rejected the account put forward by the appellant and her United Kingdom based relatives as to her circumstances in Pakistan or the extent of her ill-health.
The appeal to the Upper Tribunal
6. The single ground of appeal is that judge failed to consider a medical letter which stated that the appellant required assistance with basic activities of daily living and raised other relevant matters. That error was said to be material as it affected the judge’s conclusion that there would be no breach of Articles 3 and 8 should the appellant return to live in Pakistan.
7. Permission to appeal was granted on the basis sought.
8. The respondent filed a Rule 24 response dated 28 January 2026, in which the appeal was opposed. In that response it was contended that the letter in question was not contained within the appellant’s hearing bundle which was uploaded on 11 April 2025 but was uploaded subsequently, just 4 days prior to the hearing. Reference was made to 7.14 of the FTT Practice Directions as well as the lack of any indication that this document was brought to the attention of the judge or referred to at any stage during the hearing. As to the substance of the document, the respondent stated that this was based on reports from the appellant’s children to the GP, which accorded with the judge’s findings to the same effect.
The error of law hearing
9. The matter comes before the Upper Tribunal to determine whether the decision contains an error of law and, if it is so concluded, to either re-make the decision or remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal to do so. A bundle was prepared by the Upper Tribunal on the appellant’s behalf, containing, inter alia, the core documents in the appeal, including the appellant’s and respondent’s bundles before the First-tier Tribunal.
10. By 1130 there had been no attendance by or on behalf of the appellant. My clerk arranged for a Tannoy announcement to be made, however there was no response, other than from the Punjabi-speaking interpreter who had been booked for the hearing.
11. In deciding to proceed with the hearing in the appellant’s absence, I took account of all of the appellant’s circumstances including the following matters.
12. This is the appellant’s appeal, and having been represented before the First-tier Tribunal, she is now a litigant in person. Notice of hearing had been given by way of a letter sent on 14 May 2026 to the address provided for the appellant. The notice contained a warning that if the appellant neither attended the hearing nor submitted representations, the Upper Tribunal may consider that she is no longer interested in pursuing or opposing this appeal. No written representations have been received on behalf of the appellant.
13. This matter was adjourned previously at the request of the appellant’s son (Mr Saeed Ahmed). Mr Ahmed had responded to the previous notice of hearing listing the matter for 27 April 2026, with a request for an adjournment owing to the death of his uncle and his need to travel to Pakistan. Mr Ahmed provided his ticket which showed that he was due to return to the United Kingdom on 12 May 2026. The previous correspondence with the Tribunal shows that the appellant or at least her son understand how to communicate with the Tribunal. There is no telephone number for the appellant or her son on the Tribunal’s records. The absence of any explanation for the non-attendance by or on behalf of the appellant at the hearing listed for 19 June 2026. There is no indication that adjourning the matter once more would lead to the appellant’s attendance or representation. The appellant has the benefit of professionally drafted grounds of appeal.
Discussion
14. As identified at paragraph 5 of the grounds, this appeal turns on one point, namely whether the judge considered a letter dated 4 April 2025 from Dr Owen Elias (CT2 to Dr A Dhaliwal, a consultant in old-age psychiatry) addressed to the appellant’s GP, Dr Shah at the Alum Rock Medical Centre. This letter is wrongly described as being dated 5 April 2025 and addressed to Dr Dhaliwal in the grounds.
15. The issues raised by the respondent in the Rule 24 response regarding the late production of this item and as to whether the judge was ever referred to this piece of evidence have gone unaddressed. There is no indication from the decision nor suggestion in the grounds that there was a prior application to admit this evidence nor an application at the hearing for the judge to admit this evidence which was submitted four working days before the hearing and therefore in breach of paragraph 7.13 and 7.14 of the First-tier Tribunal Practice Directions 1 November 2024. There has been no explanation as to why this evidence was not submitted in good time, given that it was available 18 days before the hearing.
16. I accept that there is no indication from the First-tier Tribunal decision that the judge had considered the letter in question. Furthermore, the grounds, drafted by counsel before the First-tier Tribunal, do not suggest that there were any submissions made in relation to it. It is only in the grounds that the alleged importance of this letter is emphasised. In that, it is said that the contents of this letter go to the judge’s concerns as to the lack of evidence of the appellant’s claimed memory problems, inability to care for herself and difficulty with taking medication.
17. I have carefully considered the letter from Dr Elias. The appellant’s past medical history is summarised as being comprised of Type II Diabetes, hypothyroidism, hypertension and high cholesterol. There is also reference to a ‘suspected TIA in 2024.’
18. Dr Elias states that he reviewed the appellant on 1 April 2025 and that she was accompanied by her son and daughter. There is no reference to an interpreter being booked for the consultation.
19. In the second paragraph, Dr Elias starts the second paragraph of his report with the sentence, ‘They report that…’ Thereafter follows four paragraphs of what Dr Elias was told by the appellant’s children. Dr Elias states that it was not possible to carry out a full mental state examination because the appellant ‘does not speak English.’ He observed that the appellant appeared ‘forlorn, with blunted affect,’ and that she engaged ‘minimally when asked questions by her family.’ Dr Elias recorded that the appellant was unaware of the day or year and that ‘her family deny any perceptual abnormalities.’
20. Any error in relation to the consideration of Dr Elias’ letter falls squarely at the feet of the appellant’s previous representatives who failed to make an application to admit it or otherwise draw it to the attention of the judge. I find that the failure to consider Dr Elias’ letter was inadvertent. Alternatively, if there was any that any error on the part of the judge, it was far from material.
21. As indicated above, no full mental state examination could be carried out, and Dr Elias was therefore reliant on the appellant’s children for a description of her mental health and vulnerabilities. The medical evidence to which the judge referred suffered from similar deficiencies. At [21-22] the judge sets out what is said by the appellant’s GP in May 2023, which includes claims of suicidal ideation, mobility problems and inability to administer medication. At [23], the judge finds that a ‘lot of this information seems to have come from the appellant’s family.’ The judge comments at [24] that the appellant was living independently in Pakistan just 5 months prior to the GP letter and that there is no explanation, including by the GP, as to what ‘caused such a rapid deterioration as described.’
22. The judge reviewed much of the other medical evidence adduced, which came from a range of sources. None of this evidence supported the claims of inability to walk, memory problems or inability to manage aspects of her self-care including taking medication. Scans taken in 2023 revealed no neurological deficit nor abnormality. The orthopaedic triage service saw the appellant in February 2024 and while a possible knee replacement was mentioned, examination revealed normal flexion, and only relatively minor extension issues and muscle weakness. The judge records that the GP notes make no mention of any memory problems or self-care issues. If the letter of 4 May 2025 was meant to address those issues, it did not do so satisfactorily given the total reliance on the account of the appellant’s children. The appeal is dismissed.
Notice of Decision
The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve the making of an error on a point of law.
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal shall stand.

T Kamara

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

19 June 2026

NOTIFICATION OF APPEAL RIGHTS

1. A person seeking permission to appeal against this decision must make a written application to the Upper Tribunal. Any such application must be received by the Upper Tribunal within the appropriate period after this decision was sent to the person making the application. The appropriate period varies, as follows, according to the location of the individual and the way in which the Upper Tribunal’s decision was sent:

2. Where the person who appealed to the First-tier Tribunal is in the United Kingdom at the time that the application for permission to appeal is made, and is not in detention under the Immigration Acts, the appropriate period is 12 working days (10 working days, if the notice of decision is sent electronically).

3. Where the person making the application is in detention under the Immigration Acts, the appropriate period is 7 working days (5 working days, if the notice of decision is sent electronically).

4. Where the person who appealed to the First-tier Tribunal is outside the United Kingdom at the time that the application for permission to appeal is made, the appropriate period is 38 days (10 working days, if the notice of decision is sent electronically).

5. A “working day” means any day except a Saturday or a Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday or a bank holiday.

6. The date when the decision is “sent’ is that appearing on the covering letter or covering email