UI-2025-005344

  • 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-2025-005344


First-tier Tribunal No: PA/01820/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Directions Issued:

On 28th of January 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KEBEDE

Between

KJ
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent


DECISION AND REASONS

1. The appellant, a citizen of St Lucia, has been given permission to appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal which dismissed her appeal against the respondent’s decision to refuse her asylum and human rights claim.

2. The appellant’s claim was made on the basis of her sexuality and the risk on return to St Lucia as a result of her sexuality and her fear of named individuals. Her appeal against the refusal of her claim was dismissed by the First-tier Tribunal in a decision promulgated on 19 May 2025, in which the Tribunal made adverse credibility findings against the appellant.

3. The appellant sought, and was granted, permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on grounds which included assertions as to a failure to consider material evidence and a flawed assessment of credibility.

4. In a Rule 24 response dated 25 November 2025, the Secretary of State confirmed that she did not oppose the appellant’s application for permission to appeal and invited the Tribunal to determine the appeal with a fresh oral (continuance) hearing.

5. On 6 January 2026, a Notice and Directions was sent out to the parties, in the following terms:

“In light of the concession made by the respondent, and having considered the grant of permission from the First-tier Tribunal, I am minded to set aside the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Lester. In view of the fact that the error of law identified involved a failure to consider material evidence and a flawed assessment of credibility, which would have infected the judge’s reasoning across all material issues and would thus necessitate a fresh fact-finding exercise, I am of the view that there should be no preserved findings of fact and the matter ought properly to be remitted for a hearing de novo. I am accordingly minded to remit the case to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing.

Any reasonable objection to this course is to be made in writing to the Upper Tribunal not later than 5 days from the date this decision is sent out. Following that period, and in the absence of any satisfactory response, the Upper Tribunal will proceed as set out at [3] above. “

6. No response to the above has been received from either party.

7. In the circumstances, and given the terms of the directions issued to the parties, I assume that neither party has any objection to the course of action I proposed.

8. Accordingly, I set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal promulgated on 19 May 2025 for reason of error of law and remit the case to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing, with no findings preserved.

Notice of Decision

9. The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error on a point of law. The decision is set aside. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be dealt with afresh pursuant to section 12(2)(b)(i) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and Practice Statement 7.2(b).



S Kebede
Upper Tribunal Judge Kebede

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber


22 January 2026