Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-005783
First-tier Tribunal Nos: PA/54822/2024
LP/12301/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

21st October 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KHAN

Between

T H
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms A Harvey, Counsel instructed by Hunter Stone Law
For the Respondent: Mrs Nolan, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 14 May 2026

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.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. During the course of a brief hearing held in this appeal, Mrs Nolan, on behalf of the Secretary of State, conceded the appeal. In the light of her concession, my reasons will be brief.
2. The appellant, a national of Bangladesh, appeals against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Cotton (‘FTTJ’) dated 21 July 2025, dismissing his appeal against the respondent’s decision dated 12 February 2024 to refuse his protection claim made on 29 September 2022.
3. The appellant appeals with permission to the Upper Tribunal on two grounds: (i) failure by the FTTJ to give adequate reasons and adopting an unlawful approach to documentary evidence, and (ii) a misdirection in the assessment of risk on return.
4. On 21 January 2026, the respondent filed a rule 24 response. The respondent accepted that ground 2 was made out as an error of law but argued that the FTTJ did not err in relation to ground 1.
5. At the error of law hearing held this morning, Mrs Nolan accepted that it was unclear at [29] of the determination what documents had been accepted as ‘enough’ by the FTTJ to support the appellant’s account, and which were not. Further, the key issue regarding whether or not the arrest warrant was extant had not been addressed by the FTTJ and resolution of this issue went directly to the assessment of risk on return in ground 2. As a result, Mrs Nolan also conceded ground 1 of the appeal.
6. Both Ms Harvey and Mrs Nolan considered that it would be appropriate for the appeal to be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be made afresh. I agree. The nature of the error is such that, in my view, the appellant should not be denied the benefit of a two-tier decision-making process, as explained in AEB v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWCA Civ 1512 and Begum (Remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 00046 (IAC).
Notice of Decision
7. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error of law and is set aside. The case is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be made afresh by a different judge with no findings preserved.

K.A.Khan

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

14 May 2026