Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-003418
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/54576/2024
LP/03058/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 25th of March 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KAMARA

Between

SM
ANONYMITY ORDER MADE
Appellant
and

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Considered on the papers

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.

DECISION AND REASONS
Introduction
1. The appellant has been granted permission to appeal the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing his appeal following a hearing which took place on 20 June 2025.
2. Permission to appeal was granted by the First-tier Tribunal on 29 July 2025.
Anonymity
3. I have continued the anonymity order made by the First-Tier Tribunal. I have considered the public interest in open justice but conclude that it is outweighed by the importance of facilitating the discharge of the United Kingdom’s obligations to those claiming international protection because of the need for confidentiality.
The appeal to the Upper Tribunal
4. There three grounds of appeal which can be summarised as follows:
Ground one – making an error of fact in finding that the appellant gave inconsistent dates regarding a core issue in his appeal. That factual error materially affected the adverse credibility findings. Inadequate reasons were provided for other findings.
Ground two – a failure to engage properly, applying, Tanveer Ahmed [2002] UKIAT 00439, with the appellant’s supporting documentary evidence which included political letters, FIRs and medical evidence.
Ground three – a failure to properly apply the post-NABA standard of proof as clarified in JCK (Botswana) [2024] UKUT 100 (IAC) and the assessment of credibility is vitiated by irrationality, mistake of fact and a failure to give adequate reasons.
5. Permission to appeal was granted on the basis sought, with the judge granting permission making the following comments.
Permission to appeal is granted on all grounds, as there was no mention of 2017 in the interview and therefore no inconsistency as found by the FTJ; further the assessment of documents did not take into account the inherent content or look at that evidence in the round. Finally there was no separate assessment as to the risk on return upon the findings of fact to the higher standard. These are arguably material errors of law.
6. The respondent filed a Rule 24 response dated 5 August 2025 (filed on 11 August 2025) , in which the appeal was not opposed. The relevant content of that letter is replicated below.
The respondent does not oppose the appellant’s application for permission to appeal. Having reviewed the grounds, determination and the evidence it is accepted that the Judge materially erred in law in line with what is stated in the grant of permission.
The Tribunal are invited to consider whether this appeal is appropriate to be heard afresh in the FTT.
7. The Upper Tribunal notes that a further Rule 24 response was filed on 19 September 2025 in which the appeal was opposed. The matter has since been clarified by Ms Julie Isherwood, who confirmed, by email, that the respondent seeks to rely on the Rule 24 response which was filed on 11 August 2025.
8. The Upper Tribunal notes that the respondent accepts that the errors identified in the grounds of appeal are both made out and material and concurs with this view. It is noted that the appellant’s appeal was primarily dismissed on the basis that he was not a credible witness. The respondent’s concession was therefore, rightly made.
9. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did involve the making of an error of law for the reasons identified.
10. The respondent appears to suggest that this matter should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal. The grounds of appeal are silent on this issue.
11. In deciding whether to retain the matter for remaking in the Upper Tribunal, I was mindful of statement 7 of the Senior President’s Practice Statements of 25 September 2012. Taking into consideration the nature and extent of the findings to be made as well as that the appellant has yet to have a fair consideration of his protection appeal at the First-tier Tribunal, I am of the view that it would be unfair to deprive him of such consideration.
12. None of the findings of the First-tier Tribunal are preserved.

Notice of Decision
The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did involve the making of an error on a point of law.
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside.
The appeal is remitted, de novo, to the First-tier Tribunal to be reheard by a different judge.

T Kamara

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

20 March 2026