Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No:
UI-2025-005259, UI-2025-005485
UI-2025-005260, UI-2025-005479
UI-2025-005261, UI-2025-005486
UI-2025-005262, UI-2025-005488

First-tier Tribunal No:
PA/67767/2023, LP/01646/2025
PA/67778/2023, LP/01647/2025
PA/67792/2023, LP/01648/2025
PA/67798/2023, LP/01649/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 22nd of April 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HILLS

Between

OTB & OTHERS
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellants
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellants: Ms Doerr, instructed by Asylum Aid
For the Respondent: Mr Terrell, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 13 April 2026

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellants are granted anonymity.

No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the appellants, likely to lead members of the public to identify the appellants or any member of their family. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellants are a family of Nigerian nationals, a mother and her four daughters. One of those daughters is also a British citizen.
2. A claim for asylum made by the appellants was rejected by the respondent and the appellants appealed the matter to the First-tier Tribunal (FtT). In a decision dated 7 October 2025, the FtT Judge (FtTJ) dismissed the appeal. The appellants now appeal to the Upper Tribunal.
3. The basis of the appellants claim is that if they were returned to Nigeria the children would be at serious risk of female genital mutilation by their paternal relatives. Additionally, they argue removal would constitute a breach of Article 8.
Grounds of appeal
4. The appellants relied on three grounds of appeal.
5. The first is that the FtTJ failed to have any or adequate regard to the objective and expert evidence, state why he disagreed with/made findings contrary to the reasoned opinions of the two experts, and/or apply anxious scrutiny. In particular, the appellants argue that none of the country expert or psychologist’s conclusions are dealt with in the FtTJ’s decision.
6. The second is that the FtTJ failed to make findings on material matters, including the possibility that contact between the children and their father could resume at any moment which would result in family in Nigeria becoming aware of their return and whereabouts; sufficiency of protection in the appellants’ home area in Nigeria; whether internal relocation would be unduly harsh for the appellants; and the best interests of the children.
7. The third is that the FtTJ failed to engage with the appellants’ case on Article 8 and in particular on “very significant obstacles on return.”
Discussion and Findings
8. At the outset of the hearing, Mr Terrell indicated that he had spoken with Ms Doerr. The Secretary of State considered that the first ground of appeal, at least, disclosed a material error of law. Mr Terrell submitted that the matter should be remitted to the FtT. Ms Doerr agreed and emphasised that the appellants were keen to have the case resolved as soon as possible.
9. I agree with the representatives that the FtTJ made an error of law in relation to the first ground. The appellants provided expert evidence as part of their case which the FtTJ does not appear to have adequately dealt with.
10. The expert evidence raised a number of important points which needed to be considered. For example, the expert report at paragraph 39 cites sources which suggest there is little state intervention, protection and prosecution where FGM is concerned. An opinion from the expert is provided at paragraph 50 about the increased risk to the appellants of being located by family because of the obligation to register. At paragraph 53, the expert says that relocation is not a safe option to escape FGM.
11. The FtTJ said at [43] that he saw no reason to depart from the general position set out in the CPIN. While the FtTJ was entitled to prefer the CPIN over other evidence, the basis upon doing so should have been clearly set out in the decision. The failure to do so suggests an absence of anxious scrutiny and does not enable the appellants to understand the basis upon which their appeal had been determined.
12. In light of the above, I find that the FtTJ has made a material error of law.
13. Given that I have upheld the appeal on the basis of the first ground, I do not need to address the other grounds of appeal.
Disposal
14. The decision of the FtTJ is vitiated for the reasons set out above. I set aside the decision of the FtTJ.
15. I have considered whether to retain the case in the Upper Tribunal or remit it to the FtT, and discussed this point with Mr Terrell and Ms Doerr. We also discussed whether any of the findings could be preserved.
16. Given the nature of the error of law a fresh assessment will need to be made of all of the evidence against the facts. In light of that, the matter should be remitted to the FtT and I do not preserve any findings.
Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside as it involved an error of law. No findings are preserved.
Directions to the First-tier Tribunal
1. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal (Hatton Cross);
2. The remitted appeal shall not be conducted by First-tier Tribunal Judge G D Davison;
3. The anonymity direction is maintained.

N Hills
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

Dated: 17 April 2026