UI-2025-005014

  • 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-2025-005014

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/03329/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 20th of January 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BULPITT

Between

BF
(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

1. The appellant is a citizen of Iraq who is in the United Kingdom and who claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution if he were to return to Iraq. His claim for asylum was refused by the respondent and his appeal against that decision was dismissed by the First-tier Tribunal (FTT). The appellant has appealed to this Tribunal against the FTT’s decision. An anonymity order has previously been made by the FTT and I maintain that order lest anything said or done in these proceedings give rise to a risk to the appellant.

2. The appellant attended the hearing of his appeal in the FTT with documentary evidence including a book targeting corruption in the PUK and PDK which he said he had written and which he said had led to him being threatened and his home in Iraq raided. The Judge in the FTT declined to hear a passage from the book or to view any of the documents the appellant brought with him to the hearing because they had not been served in advance of the hearing in accordance with the Tribunal’s Procedure Rules. Having heard from the appellant the Judge of the FTT found that he was not credible and had not established that he had a well-founded fear of persecution.

3. Permission to appeal to this Tribunal was granted because it was considered arguable that the hearing in the FTT was procedurally unfair. Permission having been granted, the respondent has filed a response to the notice of appeal conceding that the hearing in the FTT was procedurally unfair because the appellant was unrepresented and consideration should have been given to adjourning the hearing to enable the new material to be considered. It is consequently conceded that the decision of the FTT Judge should be set-aside and the appeal remitted to the FTT for a fresh hearing. In view of that concession I have concluded that I can decide this appeal without a hearing in accordance with rule 34(1) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008.

4. On the basis of the concession that has been made I find that the decision of the FTT involved an error of law and must be set aside. As the error of law deprived the appellant of a fair hearing the appropriate disposal of this appeal is to remit it to the FTT for a fresh hearing. The appellant must serve any documents he seeks to rely upon in that appeal at least seven days before the re-hearing.

Notice of Decision

The decision of the First-tier Tribunal contained an error of law and is set aside.

The appeal is remitted to the Frist-tier Tribunal for a fresh hearing before a Judge other than First-tier Tribunal Judge Codd.


Luke Bulpitt

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

19 January 2026