Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-005796
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/65002/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision Issued:
On 17 July 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE JACKSON

Between

SJX
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

DIRECTIONS
1. The Appellant appeals with permission against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Kempton promulgated on 28 October 2025, dismissing his appeal against the Respondent’s decision to refuse his protection and human rights claim. The grounds of appeal upon which permission was granted were that the First-tier Tribunal materially erred in law in (i) its assessment of whether there would be insurmountable obstacles to family life continuing outside of the United Kingdom pursuant to paragraph EX.1(b) of Appendix FM; there being no issue that this was not possible in Baghdad; and (ii) the proportionality assessment under Article 8.
2. In a rule 24 response dated 30 December 2025, the Respondent stated that she concedes the appeal on Article 8 grounds as follows:
“It is accepted that the FTTJ materially erred when he did not consider the appellants exceptional circumstances. Had the FTTJ considered the appellants circumstances under EX1 b he would have found in favour of the Appellant and his partner. It was conceded in the determination that the Appellant could not travel to Poland where is partner is a native of, he did not undertake the assessment of family life continuing in Baghdad. Had this assessment been carried out the FTTJ would clearly have found that life as a family could not continue in Baghdad owing to the appellants partner being a foreign national.”
3. In all of the circumstances, it is my preliminary view that the First-tier Tribunal erred in law as set out in the grounds of appeal as to the Article 8 assessment and as expressly accepted by the Respondent and as such that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal should be set aside with preserved findings on the unchallenged protection findings.
4. It is further my preliminary view that on the facts and in light of the Respondent’s submissions on the inevitable outcome had the error of law not occurred, that the decision on the appeal should be remade to allow the appeal on human rights grounds. This is on the basis that the Appellant satisfies paragraph EX.1(b) of Appendix FM to the Immigration Rules and as such there is no public interest in his removal and to do so would be a breach of Article 8.
5. As such, the Upper Tribunal is minded to find a material error of law in the decision of the First-tier Tribunal, set it aside and remake the appeal to allow it on human rights grounds only.
Directions
Any party who is opposed to this course of action is directed to inform the Tribunal in writing (giving reasons), not later than 14 days after the date on which these directions are sent by the Upper Tribunal.
Following that period, if there is no reasoned objection to this approach, these directions will stand as the decision in UI-2025-005796 to find an error of law; set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal and remake the appeal to dismiss it on protection grounds and allow it on human rights grounds.
If there is a reasoned objection to this approach, the appeal will be listed for error of law hearing.

G Jackson

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

14th January 2026