Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-004635

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/58487/2023
LP/05214/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 12th of December 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KHAN

Between

KU
(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 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
(Decided on the papers without a hearing)
1. The appellant is a national of Honduras. By these proceedings she appeals with permission against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal by which her protection appeal was dismissed.
2. The appellant entered the United Kingdom on 29 January 2019 and claimed asylum on 25 January 2021. The respondent refused that claim in a letter dated 03 October 2023, and the appellant brought an appeal. In a determination promulgated on 20 May 2025, the appellant’s appeal on protection grounds was dismissed, following an oral hearing, by First-tier Tribunal Judge Lester.
3. Permission to appeal was granted by First-tier Tribunal Judge Wilson on 03 October 2025 on all grounds. Those grounds submit that the judge failed to consider material matters when applying the balance sheet approach, in particular regarding the appellant’s English language skills and her financial situation; the judge failed to properly consider obstacles to integration, including the appellant’s partner’s circumstances in respect of the feasibility of return to Honduras; and, the judge failed to consider the best interests of the child.
4. The matter now comes before me to determine whether the First-tier Tribunal erred in law, and if so whether any such error was material and whether the decision of the First-tier Tribunal should be set aside.
5. On 08 October 2025, the respondent filed her Rule 24 response. She conceded that an error of law had been made owing to a number of issues that were not considered by the judge when undertaking the proportionality balance sheet exercise in respect of Article 8 ECHR. These included no findings having been made on the appellant’s father in law’s situation, and the best interests of the child. In respect of the child, no consideration had been given to the country expert report in relation to gang recruitment of the appellant’s child on return to Honduras, which should have been factored into the determination when considering potential obstacles to re-integration.
6. In light of the respondent’s written concessions, no hearing has been necessary to determine whether there has been an error of law. I have been able to deal with the issue on the papers.
7. It follows that the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Lester contained a material error of law and must be set aside. Having considered the decision of Begum [2023] UKUT 46 IAC, I consider that it is appropriate for the hearing to be remitted for a de novo hearing before a judge other than Judge Lester.
Notice of Decision
8. The appeal is allowed as the making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved a material error of law.
9. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside.
10. This matter will be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh hearing. No findings are preserved.

K.A. Khan

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

09 December 2025