UI-2025-003323

• Status of case: Unreported
• Hearing date: 21 Aug 2025
• Promulgation date: 06 Mar 2026
• Publication date: 24 Mar 2026
• Last updated on: 24 Mar 2026

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-003323
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/55308/2024
LP/10240/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 6th of March 2026


Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CANAVAN

Between

M I
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant is granted anonymity because . 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

1. The appellant appealed the respondent’s decision dated 12 December 2023 to refuse a protection and human rights claim.
2. First-tier Tribunal Judge Hussain dismissed the appeal in a decision sent on 15 May 2025.
3. The appellant applied for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on the ground that the judge failed to give adequate consideration to the fact that a ‘conclusive grounds’ decision had been made in relation to past trafficking, made contradictory findings in relation to past trafficking, and failed to give adequate consideration to evidence relating to the appellant’s vulnerability.
4. The appellant was granted permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal in an order sent on 21 July 2025. The respondent filed a rule 24 response on 18 August 2025 stating that she accepts that the decision involved the making of a material error of law and does not oppose the appeal.

ERROR OF LAW
5. It is clear from the face of the First-tier Tribunal decision that the judge was aware of the fact that the respondent accepted that the appellant was a victim of modern slavery even if there was no direct reference to the NRM Conclusive Grounds decision [7][57]. A distinction needs to be made between the backward looking nature of an NRM assessment, which considers whether a person was the victim of modern slavery, and the forward looking nature of the Refugee Convention, which considers risk on return at the date of the hearing. It was likely to be open to the judge to observe that the respondent’s position in the decision letter was somewhat contradictory [57]. On the one hand it accepted that he was a victim of modern slavery but on the other raised credibility issues. Nevertheless, the judge said that he proceeded on the basis that the appellant did borrow money in Albania. Many of his findings appeared to be focussed on whether the appellant was likely to be at risk on return i.e. a forward looking assessment. However, it is the case that the findings at [64] of the decision appear to call into question the appellant’s account of past events, which underpinned the concession that he was a victim of modern slavery. To this extent the judge’s findings are somewhat contradictory.
6. It is a matter for the Upper Tribunal to decide whether the First-tier Tribunal decision involved the making of an error of law or not. However, I bear in mind that the parties are in agreement that the decision did not engage adequately with the fact that a Conclusive Grounds decision had been made and that some of the judge’s findings appeared to be contradictory.
7. It is my preliminary view that for the reasons set out above the First-tier Tribunal decision involved the making of an error of law. In the circumstances, it would not be an effective use of court time to list the case for hearing if it can be determined without a hearing under rule 34 of The Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008.

DIRECTIONS
8. If a party objects to the proposed course of action they must file and serve written submissions to the Upper Tribunal no later than 14 days of the date this decision is sent.
9. If there is no objection to the decision being made without a hearing by that time, this error of law decision will come into effect.
10. If there is no objection to the decision being made without a hearing by that time, the case will be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh hearing.

Notice of Decision
Subject to the directions given above, the First-tier Tribunal decision involved the making of an error of law
Subject to the directions given above, the appeals will be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal


M. Canavan
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

21 August 2025