UI-2025-005585

  • 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-2025-005585
First-tier Tribunal: PA/00477/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 11th of March 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE J F W PHILLIPS

Between

B I
(Anonymity decision made)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Ms H Masih, Counsel instructed by MH Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr S Walker, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 27 February 2026

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant appeals with permission against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 14 August 2025 dismissing his appeal against the Respondent’s decision refusing his protection and human rights claim.
Background
2. The Appellant a citizen of Iraq of Kurdish ethnicity claimed, in summary, that he was at risk on return to Iraq following the death of a colleague at his workplace for which the man’s family blamed the Appellant even though he had been acquitted of causing the man’s death by the court. The man’s father was a peshmerga with power and influence so the Appellant was unable to find safety anywhere in Iraq.
The appeal to the First-tier Tribunal
3. The Appellant’s appeal against the Respondent’s decision was heard by First-tier Tribunal Judge Ficklin in an oral hearing on 12 August 2025. The Judge found that the Appellant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or risk of serious harm on a return to Iraq or that there were very significant obstacles to his reintegration.
The appeal to the Upper Tribunal
4. The Appellant was granted permission to appeal the decision by First-tier Tribunal Judge Thomas on 17 November 2025. Judge Thomas found that the negative credibility findings of the Judge in areas where the Respondent had made concessions potentially infected the overall credibility findings in such a way as to amount to an arguable error of law.
The hearing
5. Mr Walker confirmed that the Respondent had not filed a rule 24 response and that having spoken to Ms Masih it was conceded that for the reasons outlined in the grounds the failure of the Judge to consider the Respondent’s concessions when making overall negative credibility findings amounted to a material error of law. Both representatives agreed that the nature of error meant that no findings could be preserved and that the matter must be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for rehearing.
Findings – Error of Law
6. Having carefully considered the decision of the First-tier Tribunal, the grounds of appeal and the Respondent’s concession that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal displays a material error of law I am satisfied that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal must be set aside with no findings preserved and be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for rehearing.

Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of a material error on a point of law. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for rehearing with no findings preserved.







Judge J F W Phillips
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal

5 March 2026