Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-005183

First-tier Tribunal No: HU/01360/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Directions Issued:

19th December 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE Pinder

Between

SYLVIA NTEGYEREIZE
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

DECISION AND REASONS
MADE WITHOUT A HEARING PURSUANT TO RULE 34 OF THE TRIBUNAL PROCEDURE (UPPER TRIBUNAL) RULES 2008

1. The Appellant appeals against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Borsada (“the Judge”) dated 30th July 2025 dismissing the Appellant’s appeal against the Respondent’s refusal of her human rights claims.
2. A judge of the First-tier Tribunal granted the Appellant permission to appeal the Judge’s decision on all three grounds pleaded. By way of a Rule 24 notice submitted on 12th November 2025, the Respondent conceded that the Judge had made a material error of law as the Judge had proceeded to consider suitability grounds of refusal without these having been raised by the Respondent in her decision and without raising this with either party at the hearing. The author of the Rule 24 response stated as follows at para 5:
“Nevertheless, procedural fairness would have required FTTJ Borsada to raise the issue with all parties to enable representation from both parties. This did not happen.”
3. At para 9, the Respondent stated that “(i)n light of the concession on Ground 1 on the basis of fairness, the decision in its entirety should be set aside and remade.” The Respondent defended and maintained that the Appellant’s second and third grounds did not disclose any material error of law but at para 19, the Respondent concluded as follows:
“The SSHD invites the tribunal to retain and remake the appeal. As highlighted above, Ground 1 discloses a material error of law and the decision should be set aside in its entirety. For the purpose of the remaking the SSHD submits that the appellant falls for suitability under S-LTR.4.2 – as applicable at the time of the application or under the new rules of SUI 9.1 and/or 10.1 – due to her admitted use of false documentation and identity since 2011.”
4. The Appellant has been able to file and serve a reply under Rule 25. In this notice, the Appellant invites the Tribunal to set aside the Judge’s decision in its entirety and remit the matter to the FtT. The Appellant rightly addresses the Respondent’s submissions that the matter ought to be retained in the Upper Tribunal and submits that, because there has been procedural unfairness, which has been conceded by the Respondent, Practice Statement para 7.2(a) applies. Namely, that the effect of the error has been to deprive a party before the First-tier Tribunal of a fair hearing or other opportunity for that party’s case to be put to and considered by the First-tier Tribunal.
5. I have considered the parties’ respective positions very carefully. I note that the Respondent confirms at para 19 and elsewhere in her Rule 24 decision that the Respondent now wishes to raise the issue of suitability. This not having been raised by the Respondent before and there having been procedural unfairness at the hearing before the Judge at first instance – as accepted by the Respondent – it is my view that para 7.2 of the Practice Statement clearly applies. In this respect, the Appellant is also right to rely on the guidance of the Court of Appeal in AEB v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWCA Civ 1512 at [47]-[48.
6. In light of the above and the fact that both parties have been able to set out their positions clearly through their respective Rule 24 and 25 replies, I determine without conducting a hearing that the Judge’s decision contains a material error of law. In light of the Respondent’s concession to that effect under ground 1, it is not necessary for me to determine the other grounds. I am satisfied that the effect of the errors under ground 1 amounted to procedural unfairness, which also impacted on the Judge’s other findings. For this reason, I set aside the entirety of the Judge’s decision. I also note the Respondent’s position that the entirety of the decision should be set aside.
7. For the reasons that I have given at para 5 above, the matter is also to be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a different judge to consider the Appellant’s appeal afresh.
Notice of Decision
8. The Decision of FtT Judge Borsada dated 30th July 2025 involved the making of a material error of law. The decision is set aside with no findings preserved.
9. The Appellant’s appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard afresh by a different judge.
Sarah Pinder

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

19.12.2025