UI-2025-004536

  • 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-2025-004536
First-tier Tribunal No: EA/50316/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 17 June 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CANAVAN

Between

A (ALBANIA)
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant was granted anonymity by the First-tier Tribunal because the case included a protection claim. 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.


DECISION AND REASONS

1. The appellant appealed the respondent’s decision dated 13 March 2023 to refuse a protection and human rights claim in the context of deportation proceedings.

2. First-tier Tribunal Judge T. Lawrence dismissed the appeal in a decision sent on 11 February 2024.

3. The appellant made an out of time application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on the ground that his former representatives had failed to inform him of the hearing date in the First-tier Tribunal.

4. First-tier Tribunal Judge T. Lawrence granted permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal in an order sent on 29 September 2025. He said that it was arguable that it was in the interests of justice to do so based on a possible error made by previous representatives. It is unclear why the judge did not use his powers to set aside the decision.

ERROR OF LAW

5. It is my preliminary view that if the appellant was unaware of the hearing due to an error made by a previous legal representative, it would be in the interests of justice to set aside the First-tier Tribunal on grounds of procedural fairness albeit there was no way the judge could have known that the appellant was unaware of the hearing date.

6. In the circumstances, it would not be an effective use of court time to list the case for hearing if it can be determined without a hearing under rule 34 of The Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008.

DIRECTIONS

7. If a party objects to the proposed course of action they must file and serve written submissions to the Upper Tribunal no later than 14 days of the date this decision is sent.

8. If there is no objection to the decision being made without a hearing by that time, this error of law decision will come into effect.

9. If there is no objection to the decision being made without a hearing by that time, the case will be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh hearing.

Notice of Decision

Subject to the directions given above, the First-tier Tribunal decision involved the making of an error of law

Subject to the directions given above, the appeals will be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal


M. Canavan
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

02 October 2025