Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-004983

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/56351/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 9th of January 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE COLE

Between

MU
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr M Fazli, Counsel instructed by SAJ Legal
For the Respondent: Mr K Ojo, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 22 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.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant is a citizen of Kyrgyzstan. He arrived in the UK on 3 May 2022 and claimed asylum. His protection claim was refused, and he appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. His appeal was dismissed in a decision promulgated 21 August 2025. The appellant now appeals to the Upper Tribunal.
Background
2. The appellant’s primary claim to protection is based on his sexuality as he claims to be gay.
3. The respondent refused the appellant's claim by decision dated 21 February 2024. The respondent did not accept that the appellant is gay. However, the respondent accepted that there would not be sufficient protection from persecution in Kyrgyzstan and that the appellant could no relocate in Kyrgyzstan if the material facts of his claim were accepted.
4. In relation to the protection claim, the appellant’s skeleton argument detailed that the sole issue was whether the appellant is gay. The respondent’s review agreed that the sole issue in relation to the protection claim being whether the appellant is gay.
5. The appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. The appeal was heard by Judge Symes on 21 August 2025.
6. The Judge accepted, on the balance of probabilities, the appellant’s “account of historical facts” and thus found that the appellant is gay.
7. However, the Judge went on to consider the country conditions in Kyrgyzstan. He lamented the fact that the skeleton argument “cites no supporting evidence whatsoever re country conditions.” The Judge concluded, considering the limited country information before him, that the appellant did not “possess a well-founded fear of persecution.” The appeal was dismissed.
8. The appellant submitted grounds of challenge, and First-tier Tribunal Judge Le Grys granted permission on the following terms:
3. The grounds are arguable. The Respondent’s refusal letter accepts that if the material facts of the Appellants claim were accepted, then there would not be sufficiency of protection on return and he could not internally relocate. There was nothing in the decision to suggest that any application was made for this concession to be withdrawn, with the decision instead, recording at [7], the Respondents position that the appeal essentially turned on credibility. Between [17] and [19], the Judge decides this credibility issue in the Appellant's favour. It is then found, however, that the Appellant did not have a well founded fear of persecution based on a lack of evidence as to the country conditions.
4. Given that this issue appeared to have been conceded by the Respondent, and there was accordingly no reason for the Appellant to anticipate that further supporting evidence on the topic was required, it is arguable that the Judge has fallen into error in holding this absence of evidence against the Appellant. It is further arguable that the Judge has fallen into error in going behind the concession that had been made and deciding the appeal based on an issue that was not in dispute.
9. Thus, the matter came before me to determine whether Judge Symes’ decision involved the making of an error on a point of law.
The Hearing
10. Mr Ojo had not fully prepared the case as he had been erroneously informed by a colleague that this was a case management hearing and not an error of law hearing. I summarised the case for Mr Ojo and then provided him with sufficient time to consider the papers.
11. On his return to the hearing and having confirmed that he had had enough time to fully consider all relevant matters, Mr Ojo stated that the respondent accepted that the Judge had materially erred in law as detailed in the grounds and the grant of permission.
12. Mr Ojo then also confirmed that the respondent’s position is that the decision of Judge Symes should be set aside and the decision remade to allow the appeal on asylum grounds.
13. I thanked Mr Ojo for his pragmatic submissions. I did not need to hear from Mr Fazli.
14. I informed the parties that in my judgment the grounds were made out and the decision of Judge Symes contained material errors of law such that it must be set aside.
15. I informed the parties that, considering the facts as found by the Judge, the appeal would be allowed on asylum grounds. My written reasons would follow.
Discussion and Analysis
16. As the respondent conceded that the grounds identified a material error of law and agreed that the appeal should be allowed on asylum grounds, my reasons will be brief.
17. It was clear from the respondent’s decision, the skeleton argument and the review that the sole issue for resolution in relation to the protection claim was whether the appellant was gay.
18. Once the Judge had found the sole issue in the appellant’s favour (i.e., it was found that he was gay), then there was no lawful basis in this case for the Judge to proceed to consider other matters which were not in dispute. The absence of country evidence produced by the appellant was because this issue was not in dispute between the parties, and thus it was wrong of the Judge to hold this matter against the appellant.
19. Overall, I find that the Judge materially erred for the reasons provided by the appellant in the grounds. The decision must be set aside.
20. The respondent acknowledged that the Judge had found that, on balance, the appellant is gay and thus conceded that the appellant’s appeal should be allowed on refugee grounds.
21. As the sole issue in dispute has been found in the appellant’s favour, I find that the appellant has a well-founded fear of persecution in Kyrgyzstan due to his sexuality.
Notice of Decision
There is an error of law in the decision of the First-tier Tribunal and the decision is set aside. I remake the decision and allow the appeal on refugee grounds.

C R Cole
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

30 December 2025