Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-004357
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/557473/2024
LP/03610/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 11th of November 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE O’CALLAGHAN

Between

AS
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Rule 34 Decision at Field House on 31 October 2025

DECISION AND REASONS
Introduction
1. This is an appeal by the appellant against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Hussain (‘the Judge’), sent to the parties on 22 August 2025, dismissing her international protection and human rights appeal. I observe that the hearing before the Judge was held on 9 July 2025.
2. Permission to appeal was granted by First-tier Tribunal Judge Dainty by a decision dated 17 September 2025. Judge Dainty reasoned, inter alia:
“2. It is averred that the judge based [his] credibility findings on wrong conclusions including that the case about her girlfriend’s father having reported the Appellant having been raised late in the day. The grounds point to references to this point in the screening interview and witness statement (para 79). Paragraphs 9-10 of the grounds also refer to a mistake in the judge’s conclusions about the chronology (a reference to having met a school friend in summer 2022 and the Appellant not being able to understand where the judge had taken that date from). Finally, it is argued that the judge based [his] conclusions about the likely behaviour of families in societies where honour is prized and at issue on speculation. There was no evidence upon which the judge could reasonably reach that conclusion.
3. All of the grounds adduce arguable mistakes of law.”
4. By an Order and Directions sent to the parties pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 on 7 October 2025, I observed, inter alia, that having read the papers filed in this matter, it was my preliminary view that the decision did involve the making of a material error of law, and that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal should be set aside without a hearing: rule 34 of the 2008 Rules. In the circumstances, I observed that the appropriate course of action would be to remit the case to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh determination on all issues.
5. I directed that unless within 21 days of the issue of my directions there was written objection, supported by cogent argument, by a party to the decision of the First-tier Tribunal sent to the parties on 22 August 2025 being set aside without a hearing, the Upper Tribunal would proceed to determine the appeal without an oral hearing and would remit to the First-tier Tribunal.
6. By her concise rule 24 response dated 17 October 2025, the respondent confirmed:
“The Respondent does not oppose the proposed course of action by UTJ O’Callaghan in this matter.”
Rule 34 Decision
7. In considering whether to proceed under rule 34 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 I am mindful as to the circumstances when an oral hearing is to be held in order to comply with the common law duty of fairness and as to when a decision may appropriately be made consequent to a paper consideration: Osborn v The Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61; [2014] AC 1115 and JCWI v President of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) [2020] EWHC 3103 (Admin), at [6.1 - 6.14].
8. In the circumstances and being mindful of the importance of these proceedings to the appellant, the identified position of the respondent, the expense to the parties of attending an oral hearing and the overriding objective that the Upper Tribunal deal with cases fairly and justly, I am satisfied that it is just and appropriate to proceed under rule 34.
Discussion
9. Having carefully considered the papers in this matter, I find that the Judge confused relevant facts and engaged in speculation. Such failings are material errors of law
10. I observe the guidance in Begum (Remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 00046 (IAC). I am mindful that to date the appellant has not enjoyed adequate assessment of her appeal. In the circumstances, I consider it fair and just to remit this matter to the First-tier Tribunal.
Notice of Decision
11. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal sent to the parties on 22 August 2025 is set aside for material error of law, with no preserved findings of fact.
12. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal sitting in Taylor House, to be listed before any judge other than First-tier Tribunal Judge Hussain.
13. An anonymity order is confirmed.

D O’Callaghan
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
31 October 2025