Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-004809

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/00243/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 13th of January 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MAHMOOD

Between

PG
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Litigant in Person (Ms Shivani Jegarajah of Justitia Chambers assisting)
For the Respondent: Mr Diwnycz, a Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Phoenix House (Bradford) on 3 December 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. The parties may apply on notice to vary this order.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant, a national of Somalia, appeals with permission against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Forster (“the Judge”) who by way of a decision dated 5 August had dismissed his appeal on international protection and human rights grounds. Permission to appeal had been granted by First-tier Tribunal Judge Aziz.
2. The matter had been listed before me for an Error of Law hearing.
3. A Rule 24 response dated 21 October 2025 had been provided by the Respondent. That states:
“The Presenting Officer’s note for the hearing held on 23 July 2025 states that “Sister was supposed to give evidence. IJ did not allow late evidence…” On balance it is accepted that the appellant’s sister was available to give evidence. It is also apparent from the determination that Judge Forster makes no reference to the appellant’s sister’s evidence nor gives any reasons as to why she was not permitted to give evidence. 3. It is also accepted that there is an anomaly at [25] of the determination where the judge states that the appellant did not say anything about one his sisters being in UK. This is at odds with what is stated at [24]. A perusal of the interview record reveals that questions [51] to [57] were about the appellant’s sister in UK (pages 81-82 of the HO bundle). 6 4. It is accepted that the judge’s credibility assessment may have been coloured considering the above-mentioned oversights. In the interest of justice and in abundance of caution the respondent does not oppose the appellant’s application for permission to appeal. The respondent’s view is that the matter be remitted back to FTT for a de novo hearing where all available evidence can be considered.”
4. At the hearing before me today, Mr Diwnycz said he agreed with the Rule 24 response and that the matter ought to be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for all issues to be determined.
5. The Appellant was in attendance and informed me that he had been in contact with his public access counsel via telephone. She is acting for him on a pro bono basis, for at least part of the proceedings, and for which I am grateful.
6. The Respondent has correctly conceded that there is a material error of law in the Judge’s decision for the reasons set out in the Respondent’s Rule 24 response. Therefore, the decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside.
7. I have considered whether or not this is a matter which ought to remain for further consideration here at the Upper Tribunal or be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal. I apply AEB [2022] EWCA Civ 1512 and Begum (Remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 00046 (IAC). I consider whether to retain the matter for remaking here at the Upper Tribunal, in line with the general principle set out in statement 7 of the Senior President’s Practice Statement. I take into account the history of this case, the nature and extent of findings to be made as well as the nature of the errors in this case. I further consider it would be unfair for either party to be unable to avail themselves of the two-tier decision-making process. I conclude that the appropriate decision in this case is that I remit the matter to the First-tier Tribunal with no retained findings.
8. Directions will be for the First-tier Tribunal, but in view of the difficulties at the previous hearing at the First-tier Tribunal, the Appellant’s counsel invites the First-tier Tribunal to list the matter at Newcastle as a CVP hearing. She requests that counsel’s attendance be permitted via CVP and that the Appellant’s witness (his sister) also be permitted to attend via CVP because the Appellant’s sister has childcare responsibilities and she struggles to find the money for travel. An interpreter is required for the Appellant for the hearing. Counsel’s Chambers are in London and the cost for her and/or the Appellant of travel would be high. Ideally the listing ought to take place with consultation with counsel’s chambers in terms of availability dates. Counsel should provide her availability dates to the First-tier Tribunal for the listing of the matter.

Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal contains a material error of law and is set aside in it is entirety.
There will be a rehearing on all issues at the First-tier Tribunal. None of the current findings shall stand.
The anonymity order is continued because the matter raises international protection issues.

Abid Mahmood

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

3 December 2025