Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-005209

First-tier Tribunal No: HU/01894/2024

LP/14219/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 12th February 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CANAVAN

Between

MUHAMMED JAWO
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant appealed the respondent’s decision dated 04 September 2024 to refuse a human rights claim in the context of an application for entry clearance as a dependent child.
2. The appeal was listed for a hearing in the First-tier Tribunal on 15 August 2025. First-tier Tribunal Judge Dieu was satisfied that there was a record of the hearing notice being served on the sponsor at the email address given in the appeal form although this Tribunal does not appear to have a copy of the email or the hearing notice in its electronic records. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal in a decision sent on 19 August 2025.
3. The appellant (by way of his sponsor father) applied for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal stating the he did not receive the hearing notice. If he had done, he would have attended the hearing. However, beyond a bare statement to say that he did not receive it, there was no information to say whether he had checked his email box or the spam folder to see whether an email was received but just missed by him. First-tier Tribunal Judge Dieu refused permission on this basis.
4. Upper Tribunal Judge Sheridan granted permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal in an order sent on 02 December 2025 on the ground that the First-tier had failed to consider the second limb of rule 28 of the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014 i.e. whether it was in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing.
5. The respondent filed a rule 24 response on 12 December 2025 stating that she did not accept that some of the documents were submitted with the entry clearance application as stated. However, she accepted that there may be an error of law in failing to consider whether it was in the interests of justice to proceed in the absence of the sponsor. The respondent does not oppose the appeal or the case being remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh hearing.
ERROR OF LAW
6. This is a borderline decision because it appears that the First-tier Tribunal had a record of the hearing notice being served by email to the sponsor at the address given in the appeal form and in correspondence when documents were served on the First-tier Tribunal. It is unclear whether the notice was also sent by post to the correspondence address provided. The sponsor says that he received other notices and correspondence from the Tribunal at the addresses given. If he had received the hearing notice he would have attended the hearing to give evidence. Although there can be no criticism of the judge for proceeding on the understanding that the sponsor had been properly served and had simply not attended at the date of the hearing. The position could have been reviewed once he received the grounds of appeal in relation to the application for permission to appeal made to the First-tier Tribunal.
7. The sponsor has not explained whether he has checked his email folders for the relevant date. However, I bear in mind that he is acting in person without the assistance of a legal representative. In light of the fact that the Upper Tribunal has no copy of the service of the hearing notice in the electronic records available to it, and the respondent does not oppose the appeal, I give the sponsor the benefit of the doubt. It seems clear from the grounds of appeal that he did want to attend the hearing. The issues are of importance to him and his child who may have additional vulnerabilities due to his health status.
8. It is my preliminary view that for the reasons set out above the First-tier Tribunal decision involved the making of an error of law. In the circumstances, it would not be an effective use of court time to list the case for hearing if it can be determined without a hearing under rule 34 of The Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008.

DIRECTIONS
9. If a party objects to the proposed course of action they must file and serve written submissions to the Upper Tribunal no later than 14 days of the date this decision is sent.
10. If there is no objection to the decision being made without a hearing by that time, this error of law decision will come into effect.
11. If there is no objection to the decision being made without a hearing by that time, the case will be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh hearing.
12. The sponsor (Mr Samba Jawo) must provide up to date email and correspondence contact details in writing to the Upper Tribunal no later than 14 days from the date this decision is sent.

Notice of Decision
Subject to the directions given above, the First-tier Tribunal decision involved the making of an error of law
Subject to the directions given above, the appeal will be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal

M. Canavan
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
17 December 2025