Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-004030

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/54748/2024
IA/00524/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 30 January 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BURGHER

Between

DL
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr B Shabbir, Advocate, instructed by McGlashan MacKay Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms H Gilmour, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House by CVP on 23 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 them. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. My brief decision was given orally following hearing submissions from Ms Gilmour and Mr Shabbir. The Appellant, a national of Albania, appeals against the decision of the First‑tier Tribunal Agnew (“the Judge”) promulgated on 1 February 2025 dismissing her appeal on asylum, humanitarian protection and human rights grounds.
2. The Respondent has now filed a Rule 24 response, prepared in October 2025 but served only shortly before the hearing, in which she expressly concedes that the First‑tier Tribunal materially erred in law in its assessment of procedural fairness. The concession identifies the treatment of the adjournment request. On that basis, the Secretary of State concedes that the decision of the Judge cannot stand and should be set aside.
3. At the hearing before me, the Senior Presenting Officer, Ms Gilmore, confirmed the concession unreservedly. She indicated that, in view of the nature of the procedural error and its centrality to the findings made, the Respondent does not seek to uphold the decision. She submitted that the appeal should be remitted to the First‑Tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing.
4. Mr Shabbir agreed with the representations of Ms Gilmour.
5. I have considered whether the concession is properly made. I remind myself that a concession does not bind the Upper Tribunal and I must be satisfied that an error of law is disclosed. Having reviewed the grounds of appeal, the Judge’s decision I am satisfied that the concession is well founded. The refusal of the adjournment, the absence of any engagement with the reasons advanced for it form a proper basis for conceding the appeal.
Remaking
6. Both representatives agreed that the matter should be remitted for a complete rehearing before a judge other than First‑Tier Tribunal Judge Agnew. The nature and extent of the fact‑finding required is substantial. The interests of justice plainly require that the appeal be reheard entirely afresh. In accordance with paragraph 7.2 of the Senior President’s Practice Statements, remittal to the First‑tier Tribunal is appropriate.
Notice of Decision
The decision of the First‑tier Tribunal involved the making of an error of law. It is set aside.
I set that decision aside and remit the appeal is remitted to the First‑tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) to be heard afresh by a judge other than First‑Tier Tribunal Judge Agnew.
The anonymity direction made below is preserved.

Benjimin Burgher

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

23 January 2026