Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-004474

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/66283/2024
LP/00249/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
11th December 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BLUNDELL

Between

KM
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Decided on the papers under rule 35

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. This order is made because the appellant is an asylum seeker and the protection of her identity outweighs the principle of Open Justice.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant appeals with my permission against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal. By its decision, the First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appellant’s appeal on international protection and human rights grounds.
2. No appeal was brought against the decision to dismiss the appeal on asylum grounds. The appellant’s challenge to the judge’s decision on human rights grounds was rather unusual. She submitted that the judge was wrong to consider her relationship with children who are said to be hers. That was for two reasons. Firstly, because it was a new matter as defined in statute and the respondent had not given consent for it to be considered. Secondly, because nothing had been said about it at the hearing.
3. By a rule 24 response which was filed on 12 November, the respondent accepted that the FtT had erred in the manner claimed. She invited the Upper Tribunal to set aside the decision of the FtT and to remake the decision on a date to be notified. She is content for the children to be raised as a new matter. She sought additional time in which to make enquiries about the position of the children and helpfully suggested directions which might be made to progress the appeal.
4. Rather belatedly the appellant’s representative has now filed a rule 25 response in which he agrees with much of that, but not with the relief suggested by the Secretary of State. He suggests that the proper course is to remit the appeal to the FtT.
5. Whilst there is considerable merit in the respondent’s suggestion that the case should be retained in the Upper Tribunal, based as it is on the lengthy delays in the FtT and other such matters, I think that I must remit the case to the FtT. The judge’s error was an error which went to the fairness of the proceedings; she considered a matter which was not in law before her. The proper course in such circumstances is usually to remit to the FtT (see the SPT’s Practice Statement) and there is no proper justification for departure from that presumption in this case.
6. The respondent will obviously wish to ensure that the FtT is provided with all necessary information about the children. It would be desirable for the respondent to indicate, for example, whether it is even accepted that the appellant is the mother of these children. In the event that the children are the subject of outstanding applications for leave to remain, it would probably be desirable for any appeals against any refusals to be linked and heard with this case, although there are obviously myriad considerations which might feed into any such decision. It is a matter for the FtT, but I would have thought that it would be useful for there to be a CMR hearing in the New Year so that such considerations can be aired before seeking to list this appeal for substantive hearing.
Notice of Decision
The decision of the FtT to dismiss the appeal against the refusal of the appellant’s human rights claim contained an error of law and must be set aside. That aspect of the appeal is remitted to the FtT to be heard afresh. The dismissal of the appeal on protection grounds shall stand.

Mark Blundell

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

5 December 2025