Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-005743
First-tier Tribunal No: RP/00013/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 26th of March 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE McCARTHY

Between

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Appellant
and

EI
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms S McKenzie
For the Respondent: Mr P Duffy

Heard at Field House on 23 March 2026

Order Regarding Anonymity

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

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

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant Secretary of State for the Home Department appeals with permission granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Sheriden against the decision and reasons of First-tier Tribunal Judge Seelhoff that was issued on 14/03/2025.
2. The Respondent (EI) and his wife attended the hearing. There was no interpreter, but it was agreed none was needed for the error of law hearing.
3. An anonymity decision was made in the first-tier Tribunal. It is appropriate to renew it in the Upper Tribunal for the same reasons given by Judge Seelhoff.
4. At the start of the hearing, I clarified the issues. Mr Duffy confirmed there was no cross appeal and that Judge Seelhoff’s decision and reasons regarding the revocation of refugee status and the exclusion from humanitarian protection stood. Ms McKenzie confirmed that the issue was about whether Judge Seelhoff’s decision and reasons regarding the cessation of the article 3 protection EI granted in January 2018 was legally sound. In essence, Ms McKenzie said the SSHD argues that Judge Seelhoff failed to examine the current situation facing the Respondent in Albania.
5. I raised a question about which party held the burden of proof regarding article 3 in the circumstances of this appeal. Mr Duffy said it lay on the SSHD because EI had been granted international protection and it was for the SSHD to show that circumstances had materially changed. I gave Ms McKenzie time to consider the position. She informed me that the SSHD was in difficulty because of the burden of proof issue. She accepted the SSHD held the burden of proof to show that circumstances had materially changed and that no such evidence had been provided.
6. Although I announced at the hearing that I would dismiss the appeal by the Appellant SSHD, I reserved my reasons. As the SSHD has conceded that she had the burden of proof, I find there is no legal or other error in Judge Seelhoff’s decision. At paragraphs 41 to 43 of his decision, he clearly set out the failure of the SSHD to prove that there had been a material change to the risks facing EI on return. As the burden of proof is on the SSHD, those findings are sound.
Notice of Decision
There is no legal or other error in the decision, and the Secretary of State’s appeal to the Upper Tribunal is dismissed.
This means the decision and reasons of First-tier Tribunal Judge Seelhoff stand.

Judge John McCarthy

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

23 March 2026