Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: UI-2025-003767
[PA/01711/2024]

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision and Reasons Promulgated

19th November 2025

Before

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge MANUELL

Between

S J
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Heard at Field House
On 14 November 2025

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr R Clare, Counsel
(instructed by R P Singh Solicitors)
For the Respondent: Mr B Hulme, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS
1. Permission to appeal was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Bulpitt on 17 September 2025 against the decision to dismiss the Appellant’s Article 8 ECHR human rights appeal made by First-tier Tribunal Judge Raymond in a decision and reasons dated 28 May 2025. The Appellant’s asylum appeal was also dismissed but that decision was not appealed. The Appellant claimed that he had family life with his British partner (“Ms B”), child and step-child. This had been raised as a “new matter” after the asylum claim had been made, with the consent of the Respondent.
2. The Appellant, a national of Botswana born on 20 May 1985, entered the United Kingdom on 23 March 2022 as a visitor. His return ticket was for 7 April 2022. He claimed asylum on 12 August 2022. His claim was refused on 8 January 2024. No part of his story was accepted by the Respondent.
3. Judge Raymond found that the Appellant’s asylum claim, based on his alleged fear of a local gangster in Botswana, was a fabrication and was unworthy of belief. He found that the Appellant could return to Botswana safely, where he could rejoin his partner and children living there whom he had abandoned. Judge Raymond found that the Appellant’s Article 8 ECHR claim based on his claimed family life in the United Kingdom was an attempt to reinforce the fictitious asylum claim. He continued “I further find, upon looking at the totality of the evidence, that the Appellant has no intention of a genuine and subsisting relationship with Ms B, and the child that he has had with her in December 2024, whatever may be her own perception of their relationship”.
4. The Appellant appealed to the Upper Tribunal, contending that there were material errors of law in the Article 8 ECHR decision. It was asserted in summary that the Judge had acted with procedural unfairness. Matters taken against the Appellant concerning his family life claim had not been put to the Appellant or his partner as they should have been. There had been unfair and/or inadequate reasoning when reaching adverse credibility findings. The children’s best interests had not been considered.
5. Permission to appeal was refused by the First-tier Tribunal but was granted by the Upper Tribunal. Upper Tribunal Judge Bulpitt’s grant of permission to appeal was in the following terms:
“The first ground is arguable. In particular it is arguable that a procedural unfairness arose in the hearing before the FTTJ as a result of the failure to put the Judge’s concerns about whether the Appellant’s relationship with his claimed partner and child was genuine to the Appellant and his partner when they gave evidence.
“The second ground asserting that the Judge failed to consider that lies may be told for different reasons when carrying his adverse credibility findings concerning the Appellant’s asylum claim into his consideration of the family life claim is equally arguable.
“As ground one is predicated on an assertion about what the witnesses were asked in cross examination, the parties are directed to agree in advance of the hearing of this appeal precisely what questions were posed to the witnesses during the hearing before the FTTJ.”
6. There was no rule 24 notice from the Respondent however a position statement was belatedly filed on 12 November 2025, in the following terms:
“The appellant’s position, as expressed to the respondent on 5 November 2025, is that no questions were put to the witnesses as to their relationship and the child during the First-tier Tribunal hearing. Having reviewed the presenting officer’s record of proceedings, the respondent agrees that no questions were put, either by the presenting officer or the FTTJ, to the witnesses as to their relationship and the child.”
7. A recording of the First-tier Tribunal proceedings was supplied to the Tribunal but unfortunately it was too faint to be understood and thus provided no assistance.
8. Mr Hulme confirmed that the Respondent accepted that procedural unfairness had occurred (ground one), such that the Judge had materially erred in law. His decision as to the Appellant’s Article 8 ECHR appeal could not stand and must be set aside.
9. Mr Claire for the Appellant concurred.
10. The Tribunal agreed with the parties. The Article 8 ECHR points on which the Judge found against the Appellant were not raised during the appeal hearing, despite the interventionist approach the Judge evidently took with the asylum claim. There was substantial evidence capable of proving the close family relationship, e.g., the child’s birth certificate showing the Appellant’s paternity, the witness statement of the claimed partner and a tenancy agreement signed by the claimed partner and also by the Appellant as a permitted occupant. While the relationship had been formally challenged in the supplementary reasons for refusal letter dated 30 January 2025, as reiterated in the Respondent’s review dated 21 February 2025, that challenge required to be properly explored and expressly put to the Appellant while he was giving evidence. That particularly was necessary given the generally adverse view of the Appellant’s credibility which the Judge had formed. Additionally, there are a number of typographical errors in [108] onwards of the Judge’s decision which indicate an unfortunate failure to proof read it with care, which tends to indicate that the Article 8 ECHR element of the appeal was not properly considered.
11. Of equal concern was the Judge’s failure to address at any stage the best interests of the child, whose paternity was not in doubt, and who of course had no responsibility for either of its parent’s conduct. There was a duty on the First-tier Tribunal to consider the child’s best interests as part of the Article 8 ECHR proportionality assessment.
12. The Judge’s dismissal of the Appellant’s asylum appeal, as noted above, was not challenged and his adverse credibility findings therefore stand. Those findings will need to be factored into the Article 8 ECHR appeal.
13. As Article 8 ECHR appeal will have to be reheard before another First-tier Tribunal Judge, the Appellant is granted permission to file and serve up to date evidence relating to his claimed family life in the United Kingdom. Any such evidence must be filed and served in accordance with the overriding objective and at least 28 days prior to the re-hearing in the First-tier Tribunal. The Tribunal points out that the Appellant’s witness statement dated 1 August 2024 contains the following mystery at [24]: “I do not believe or trust that my partner Botswana and I will be safe if we were returned to Albania.” (sic)

DECISION
The Appellant’s appeal to the Upper Tribunal (limited to Article 8 ECHR grounds only) is allowed.
There were material errors of law in the First-tier Tribunal’s decision and reasons concerning the Appellant’s Article 8 ECHR appeal. That decision is set aside.
The Appellant’s Article 8 ECHR appeal must be reheard in the First-tier Tribunal before any judge except Judge Raymond.
The anonymity order previously made remains in force.

Signed Dated 17 November 2025

R J Manuell
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Manuell