UI-2025-004513

  • Case title:  
  • Appellant name:
  • Status of case: Unreported
  • Hearing date:
  • Promulgation date:
  • Publication date:
  • Last updated on:
  • Country:
  • Judges:

The decision



IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-004513
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/54600/2024
LP/03880/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Directions Issued:

15th June 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PINDER

Between A E
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

DECISION AND REASONS
MADE WITHOUT A HEARING PURSUANT TO RULE 34 OF THE TRIBUNAL PROCEDURE (UPPER TRIBUNAL) RULES 2008

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.

1. The Appellant appeals against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Cary (‘the Judge’) dated 27th July 2025 dismissing the Appellant’s protection and human rights appeal.
2. Upper Tribunal Judge Blundell granted permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal to the Appellant on all grounds pursued by way of a decision sealed on 24th October 2025.
3. On 11th November 2025, the Upper Tribunal received the Respondent’s reply under Rule 24. In this reply, the Respondent accepts that the Judge has erred in law as pleaded under the Appellant’s first three grounds of appeal. She also submits that those errors mean that the decision should be set aside in its entirety and the appeal should be remitted to the FtT to be considered afresh.
4. In light of the above and the fact that the Respondent has helpfully been able to set out her position very clearly through her Rule 24 reply, I proceed to determine this appeal without conducting a hearing.
5. Having considered the Appellant’s grounds of appeal and the Respondent’s Rule 24 reply, I am in agreement that the Judge has erred in law. The errors made, as accepted by the Respondent, go to the core issues raised by the Appellant’s claim and appeal and also involve procedural fairness.
6. In light of the above, I determine under Rule 34 without conducting a hearing that the Judge’s decision contains a material error of law and should be set aside. Considering the centrality of those errors of law to the issues that were to be determined in this appeal, namely the core issues of credibility and the Appellant’s supporting evidence, including an expert report, I also agree that it is appropriate for the matter to be remitted to the FtT to be heard afresh by a different judge. For these reasons, I set aside the entirety of the Judge’s decision.
7. I have also maintained the Anonymity Order since this was issued by the FtT and is appropriate in light of the Appellant having a pending and undetermined appeal for international protection involving claims against the Egyptian authorities.
Notice of Decision
8. The Decision of FtT Judge Cary dated 27th July 2025 involved the making of a material errors of law. The decision is set aside with no findings preserved.
9. The Appellant’s appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard afresh by a different judge.


Sarah Pinder

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

03.06.2026