Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-005491 & UI-2025-005477

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/72756/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision& Reason Issued:
On 16 February 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PINDER

Between

A E
(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

Order Regarding Anonymity

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.

1. The Appellant appeals against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Gillespie (‘the Judge’) dated 30th May 2025 dismissing the Appellant’s protection and human rights appeal.
2. FtT Judge Taylor grant permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal to the Appellant on a limited ground only by way of a decision dated 27th November 2025. This grant of permission has been actioned in this Tribunal under case reference number UI-2025-005491.
3. However, on 26th November 2025, Resident Judge Clarke had also issued a decision, in response to the Appellant’s application for permission to appeal lodged with the FtT, proposing to set aside Judge Gillespie’s decision under Rule 35 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014 (‘the Tribunal Procedure 2014 Rules’). Resident Judge Clarke’s decision was disclosed by the Appellant upon lodging his application for permission to appeal directly to this Tribunal seeking to renew the remaining grounds of appeal. The Appellant’s application for permission lodged in this Tribunal is case reference number UI-2025-005477.
4. Following consideration of the above, I issued directions on 22nd January 2026 asking both parties inter alia to confirm in writing whether they each have any objection to the following:
(a) The Upper Tribunal issuing a stay of the appeal proceedings under case number UI-2025-005491;
(b) The Upper Tribunal exercising its powers under Rule 34 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 to decide both sets of appeal proceedings in the Upper Tribunal under case numbers UI-2025-005491 and UI-2025-005477 without a hearing on the basis of the pre-liminary view indicated and summarised at para 4 of the directions of 22nd January 2026.
5. I also asked the Respondent to confirm whether any objection had been raised by the Respondent in response to Resident Judge Clarke’s minded-to decision and whether she had any objection to my making an Anonymity Order in favour of the Appellant.
6. On 29th January 2026, the Appellant’s solicitors confirmed that they had no objections on behalf of the Appellant to the two proposed decisions set out at para 4 above. The Appellant also asked that the appeal be remitted to the FtT de novo before a different judge.
7. On 3rd February 2026, the Respondent’s representative confirmed that, having checked her records, no record had been found which indicated objections having been raised in response to Resident Judge Clarke’s minded-to decision. The Respondent also confirmed that she has no objection to the Upper Tribunal proceeding with the two proposed decisions set out at para 4 above. Lastly, the Respondent also helpfully confirmed that she had not objection to an Anonymity Order being made in favour of the Appellant.
8. In light of the above, I formally confirm that the appeal under case reference number UI-2025-005491 has been stayed.
9. In light of the above and the fact that both parties have helpfully been able to set out their positions very clearly through their respective responses to my directions of 22nd January 2026, I proceed to determine this appeal, under both case reference numbers UI-2025-005491 and UI-2025-005477 without conducting a hearing.
10. I had indicated at para 4 of the directions of 22nd January 2026 that the decision of Resident Judge Clarke should be given precedence, so to speak, on the basis that this decision was first in time. I also indicated, upon considering the Judge’s decision dismissing the Appellant’s appeal and the Appellant’s grounds of appeal, that I agreed that the apparent omission of any consideration of the genuineness of the Appellant’s political beliefs in the UK arguably constituted a material error of law. This is because it impacts the assessment of risk at the critical point of return and the likelihood of account deletion – see para 4 of Resident Judge Clarke’s decision.
11. As I have summarised above, neither party has raised any objection to my pre-liminary views indicated on 22nd January 2026. Nor did the Respondent confirm any objections at the time of being served with Resident Judge Clarke’s minded-to decision of 26th November 2025. In light of this and what I have set out above, I determine under Rule 34 without conducting a hearing that the Judge’s decision contains a material error of law. Considering the centrality of that error of law to the issues that were to be determined in this appeal, I also consider it appropriate for the matter to be remitted to the FtT to be heard afresh by a different judge. For these reasons, I set aside the entirety of the Judge’s decision and this disposes of both cases in this Tribunal (UI-2025-005491 & UI-2025-005477).
12. Lastly, as also referred to above, I make an Anonymity Order in favour of the Appellant. This is because he has raised a protection claim seeking international protection from the authorities in Iran. I consider therefore that the importance of facilitating the discharge of the obligations of the United Kingdom under the Refugee Convention in the circumstances of this case, which has yet to be determined, currently outweighs the principle of open justice.
Notice of Decision
13. The Decision of FtT Judge Gillespie dated 30th May 2025 involved the making of a material error of law. The decision is set aside with no findings preserved.
14. 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 06.02.2026