Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-003590

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/65793/2023
LP/09228/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 23rd December 2025

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PAUL LEWIS

Between

MSA
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr. Thrower, Broudie Jackson Canter Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms. Newton, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Manchester Civil Justice Centre on 15 December 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

Anonymity was ordered by the First-tier Tribunal. No application to discharge was made. It remains in force.

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

Background
1. The appellant, a citizen of Iraq, appeals with permission against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal Judge (the ‘judge’) promulgated on 14th April 2025.

Grounds of appeal
2. The appellant sought permission to appeal against the judge’s decision. His grounds of appeal (drafted as a litigant in person) raised several assertions which were without any obvious substance.
3. Applying R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Robinson [1997] 3 WLR 1162), UT Judge Mc William was obliged to examine the judge’s decision for any obvious points of law which favoured the applicant even though the appellant has not taken it. Having done so, permission to appeal was granted on a single ground:
(i) The judge’s reasoning for dismissing aspects of the appellant’s factual claim was inadequate.

The hearing
4. The Respondent did not file a response under Rule 24 of the Tribunal Procedure Rules 2008. Ms. Newton, who appeared for the respondent, now conceded the judge’s decision contained an error of law and did not oppose the appeal.

Discussion
5. The concession of the respondent is important, but not determinative of this appeal.
6. A failure to give reasons or any adequate reasons for findings on material matters may be an error of law, applying R v Iran [2005] EWCA Civ. 982 at [9] [ii]. Brevity of reasoning is generally to be commended. The degree of particularity required depends entirely on the nature of the issues falling for decision. They must enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the relevant matters.
7. The appellant’s case is that he is at risk on return to Iraq as the potential victim of an honour killing. He says that he began a sexual relationship with a woman referred to as ‘AM’. The appellant’s relationship was discovered by AM’s mother and then father. AM’s father was said to be ‘rich and influential’. He used his wealth and influence to encourage the PUK’s representative to visit the appellant’s house with the intention of harming the appellant.
8. The judge thought very little of the appellant’s account. At [38] the judge did not find the appellant to be credible because the [34] the appellant’s was ‘convenient’.
9. The primary issues to be determined before the judge were whether the appellant’s relationship with AM had resulted in a threat to him; then whether that threat placed the appellant at risk of persecution. Other than an indirect reference to vagueness on one aspect of the appellant’s account: It is not explained how AM’s father was able to locate the appellant’s address from this wife scrolling through AM’s messages’, the judge’s reason(s) for rejecting the core aspects of appellant’s account are insufficiently explained. They do not enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the relevant matters.

Disposal of appeals in Upper Tribunal
10. Section 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, gives the Upper Tribunal an unfettered discretion to remit the case to the First-tier Tribunal or to remake the decision in the Upper Tribunal.
11. Neither party sought to persuade me that that it was appropriate to retain this matter, there having been no substantive decision in the First-tier Tribunal. I agree. There are no findings to preserve.

Notice of Decision
The decision of the judge involved a material error of law. I allow the appeal and set aside the decision. The appeal is to be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be decided de novo by a judge other than Judge Howard.

Paul Lewis

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

16th December 2025