UI-2025-004625

  • 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-2025-004625
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/04054/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 17 June 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SHERIDAN

Between

NM
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms Chapman, Counsel instructed by Luqmani Thompson LLP
For the Respondent: Ms Gilmour, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 3 June 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.

CONSENT ORDER
Under Rules 39 and 40(3) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008
Background
1. This consent order is made following a hearing on 3 June 2026 to re-make the decision of the First-tier Tribunal of 26 May 2025 that was set aside by my error of law decision issued on 22 February 2026.
2. At the start of the hearing:
a. the parties confirmed that it was not in dispute that there was a “Convention reason”;
b. the parties agreed that the sole issue in dispute was whether it was safe and reasonable for the appellant to relocate to Kabul; and
c. Ms Gilmour stated that she would not be cross-examining the appellant.
3. Following Ms Chapman’s submissions, Ms Gilmour conceded the appeal. She accepted that, on the specific facts of this case, there was a real risk of the appellant being killed by those he fears even if he relocates to Kabul. She emphasised that her concession was based on the particular and specific facts of this case, including that (a) there is a preserved finding that the appellant faces a risk in his home area from a member of the Taliban; and (b) the appellant’s home area is geographically close to Kabul.
4. The parties agreed to dispose of the proceedings by way of a consent order.
Decision
5. Pursuant to Rules 39 and 40(3) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 I make the following order which reflects what was agreed by the parties:
The appellant’s appeal is allowed on the basis that his removal from the UK would breach the UK’s obligations under the Refugee Convention

D. Sheridan
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

4 June 2026