Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-003209
First-tier Tribunal Nos: PA/66110/2024
LP/03737/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 13th March 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PAUL LEWIS

Between

MV
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr D Bazini, Counsel, instructed by AA Immigration Lawyers Ltd
For the Respondent: Mr D Simpson, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 5 March 2026

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 Tajikistan. He appeals with permission against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal Judge (the Judge) dated 3 June 2025 refusing his asylum and humanitarian protection claim.
2. Permission to appeal against that decision was granted on 15 July 2025 setting out five grounds of appeal.
3. In short, those grounds assert that the Judge made errors by making findings which were not open to him in circumstances when they had not been put to the Appellant in cross-examination. Further, it is said that the Judge’s findings were insufficient regarding the documentary evidence relied upon by the Appellant including a finding the Appellant had produced and relied upon false documentation (when no such submission had been made by the Respondent).
4. Both parties having considered matters carefully now agree that errors of law took place. Mr Simpson on behalf of the Respondent concedes that the Judge made findings which were not properly and fairly put to the Appellant during the hearing. Having considered carefully the record of proceedings before the Judge, Mr. Simpson accepts that the judge erred in attributing oral evidence to the appellant which was not given at the hearing.
5. Mr. Simpson accepts that the appellant was deprived of a fair hearing and that the judge’s findings were in error having evidence given by the appellant.
6. The Upper Tribunal is not bound by the Respondent’s concession, however the fact that there is no dispute between the parties necessarily functions as an important factor in the assessment of whether the Judge’s decision involved an error of law. I find the appellant was deprived of a fair hearing for the reasons set out at [4] and [5] above.
Disposal
7. The parties agreed that this matter be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal with no findings of fact preserved. I agree.
Notice of Decision
8. The decision of the Judge involved a material error of law. I set aside the decision of Judge Mills dated 3 June 2025.
9. I remit the decision to the First-tier Tribunal de novo, to be heard by any Judge other than Judge Mills.

Paul Lewis

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

13th March 2026