Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-003521

First-tier Tribunal Nos:
PA/52880/2023, LP/12856/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 11th February 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ZUCKER

Between

KSL
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr S Winter, instructed by Mukhtar & Co Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms S Simbi, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 29 January 2026

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
1. The Appellant is a citizen of Iraq of Kurdish ethnicity who on 5th November 2021 made application for international protection as a refugee on the basis that he was at risk from a family who disapproved of his relationship with their daughter.
2. On 24th April 2023 a decision was made to refuse the application and so the Appellant appealed. On 6th June 2025 the Appellant’s appeal was heard by First-tier Tribunal Judge Montgomery sitting at Glasgow. In a decision dated 18th June 2025 Judge Montgomery dismissed the appeal on all grounds. Not content with that decision, by application dated 26th June 2025, the Appellant made application to the First-tier Tribunal for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal which application on 14th July 2025 was refused by First-tier Tribunal Judge Mulready who found no error of law in the impugned decision. The Appellant then renewed his application before the Upper Tribunal. On 4th September 2025 Upper Tribunal Judge Keith granted permission on all grounds, albeit noting that some of the grounds [(ii) and (iv)] were stronger than others.
3. In essence the grounds argue that Judge Montgomery:
(i) provided insufficient reason for not accepting the evidence of the Appellant’s two uncles who gave evidence to confirm the dispute;
(ii) erred in finding that the Appellant’s family could help the Appellant obtain replacement documents;
(iii) notwithstanding the contention that the issue did not arise because it was submitted that documentation could not be obtained, erred in finding internal flight was available to the Appellant;
(iv) failed to give sufficient weight to the Appellant’s age when he arrived in the United Kingdom in finding inconsistencies in the Appellant’s evidence and reliance on the evidence provided by the Appellant in interview when he was still a minor.
The Hearing Before the Upper Tribunal
4. I was very grateful to both representatives and in particular Ms Simbi for the realistic approach she took to the submissions made by Mr Winter, with respect to the first ground. At paragraph 53 of the decision and reasons Judge Montgomery had said,
“If the appellant had given a consistent, credible, and plausible account of his circumstances then the additional evidence would have added weight to that account when considered in the round. However, where the core of the account is riddled with inconsistencies this evidence does not assist the appellant in establishing its veracity.”
5. It was not until paragraphs 54 to 56 that Judge Montgomery went on to consider the evidence of the uncles. When standing back and looking at this decision, it is difficult to know what evidence could then have assisted the Appellant given that Judge Montgomery had made up her mind before considering the evidence of the uncles and if the evidence of the Appellant had been consistent, credible and plausible, then reading the decision the evidence of the uncles would have been irrelevant.
6. This is a classic “Mibanga [2005] EWCA Civ 365 para 24 ” point, a point taken within the grounds relied upon by the Appellant before this Tribunal [see also AM (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] 4 WLR 78 at [19(a)] per Ryder LJ].
7. Ms Simbi accepted that there was an error of law which was material and I agree. The proper course, given that this case needs to be considered afresh is for the matter to be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard before a judge other than Judge Montgomery and so that is what I direct.
Notice of Decision
8. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside to be remade afresh before the First-tier Tribunal.
9. The anonymity order will stay in place.

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

4 February 2026