UI-2025-004572

  • 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-2025-004572

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/62694/2023

LP/06397/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
3rd December 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HIRST

Between

MS
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Miah, instructed by Jalalabad Law Associates
For the Respondent: Ms Clewley, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 27 November 2025

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.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant appeals from the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated dismissing his appeal on protection grounds. Permission to appeal was granted by the First-tier Tribunal on 30 September 2025.
2. On 8 October 2025 the Respondent filed a response under Rule 24 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 conceding that there were material errors of fact amounting to an error of law in the First-tier Tribunal’s decision.
3. Having considered the First-tier Tribunal decision and the grounds of appeal I agree with the parties that there were multiple errors of fact in the decision. In particular, the judge at paragraphs 16 and 20 of the decision did not accurately summarise the basis of the Appellant’s asylum claim and erroneously recorded the procedural history of the case; the judge then proceeded to make adverse findings on an erroneous factual basis. At paragraph 21 the judge appears to have misunderstood the significance of the documentary evidence in relation to the Appellant’s claim to be the subject of a false criminal case.
4. The multiple errors of fact in the determination amount to a material error of law in the First-tier Tribunal’s decision and I therefore set the decision aside.
5. The parties were in agreement that the matter should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing. I consider that this is the appropriate course given that a fresh fact-finding exercise is required.

Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of a material error of law and is set aside.
The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing with no findings preserved, before a different judge.



L Hirst

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber


28 November 2025