UI-2025-005135

  • 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-2025-005135
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/61547/2023
LP/10881/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 17th February 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RIPLEY

Between

MRT
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Solomon, Counsel, instructed by Qore Legal Ltd
For the Respondent: Ms Clewley, Senior Presenting Officer


Substantive Error of Law hearing at Field House on 8 January 2026


ANONYMITY ORDER

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.


DISPOSAL DECISION

1. These directions are made pursuant to the decision promulgated on 21 January 2026 finding an error of law in the decision of First-tier Tribunal Ruth (“the Judge”) dated 29 September 2025.

Anonymity Order
2. The Judge issued an anonymity order. Neither party requested that the order be set aside. I observe that the appellant seeks international protection and consider that her private life rights protected under Article 8 ECHR presently outweigh the right of the public to know her identity as a party to these proceedings. The latter right is protected by Article 10 ECHR.

Remittal
4. Pursuant to directions given orally at the hearing on 8 January 2026, and confirmed in the decision dated 21 January 2026, the respondent has filed a submission dated 16 January 2026. The respondent considers that the relationship of MR (refs: PA/60705/2023 and UI-2025-002944) with this appellant was not the focus of MR’s appeal, whereas this was a central part of the evidence in this appellant’s appeal in the First Tier hearing. Notwithstanding the application of Devaseelan (Second Appeals – ECHR – Extra-Territorial Effect) Sri Lanka* [2002] UKIAT 00702; [2003] Imm. A.R.1 and GO (Colombia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] EWCA Civ 1276, the respondent maintains the challenge as to the appellant’s sexuality and her relationship with MR.

5. I am mindful of the presumption in paragraph 7.2 of the Senior President’s Practice Statement for the Immigration and Asylum Chambers that appeals should be remade in the Upper Tier Tribunal and find that paragraph 7.2(b) applies. Both representatives concurred that if the appellant’s sexuality and relationship with MR remained disputed the appeal would involve considerable oral evidence and fact finding and should be considered de novo by the First Tier Tribunal.

Further Notice of Decision
6. The matter is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal sitting at Taylor House.

7. The decision is to be remade by a Judge of the First Tier Tribunal other than Judge Ruth.

8. The anonymity order is to continue.

F Ripley
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

7 February 2026.