Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-004618
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/62725/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 17th of April 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE O’BRIEN

Between

MR
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms P Solanki of Counsel
For the Respondent: Ms S Rushforth, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Cardiff Civil Justice Centre on 7 April 2026

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 against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 28 August 2025 dismissing his appeal against the respondent's decision dated 24 April 2024 to refuse his protection and human rights claim.

2. Permission to appeal was refused by the First-tier Tribunal but granted on renewal by Upper Tribunal Judge Bulpitt. The renewed grounds allege in short that the decision involved a material procedural unfairness resulting in a material misapprehension of fact, the First-tier Tribunal Judge (‘the judge’) failed to resolve a material conflict of evidence, the judge misapplied the definition of ‘particular social group’, the judge erred in his approach to the expert evidence, and the judge applied too high a standard of proof to the appeal.

3. Ms Rushforth conceded at the hearing that the judge’s decision involved the making of an error in a matter of law, such that the appeal should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard afresh. In particular, she conceded that the third ground of appeal (failed to resolve a material conflict of evidence) disclosed such an error.

4. I consider that the respondent’s concession of this appeal was well-made. In addition to failed to resolve a material conflict of evidence, it appears to me that the hearing involved a material unfairness (albeit that the judge cannot personally be criticised). Amongst other things, the bundle includes evidence from Counsel for the appellant at the First-tier Tribunal hearing confirming that she would have required sight of the appellant’s second asylum interview and/or sought an adjournment had she not been (incorrectly) reassured by the presenting officer that there was no record of such an interview on the respondent’s systems. That interview record should have been provided to the appellant and the Tribunal pursuant to rule 24 of the First-tier Tribunal Rules of Procedure.

5. I also agree that the circumstances require remittal for a fresh hearing with no findings preserved.

Notice of Decision

1. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error on a point of law and is set aside.
2. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard afresh by another judge with no findings preserved.

Directions

1. The respondent shall upload the record of the asylum interview on 27 March 2024 by the end of 7 April 2026,
2. The appellant shall upload an updated statement, ASA and bundle of any documents upon which he wishes to rely by 5 May 2026.
3. The respondent shall, if so advised, upload a further review of the appeal by 19 May 2026.
4. The appeal shall be listed for final hearing on the first available date on or after 26 May 2026, with 3 points and the booking of an Urdu interpreter.

Sean O’Brien

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

7 April 2026