Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-005906
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/03138/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 23rd of April 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KAMARA

Between

SJ
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Considered on the papers

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
Introduction
1. By way of a decision of the Upper Tribunal dated 17 February 2026, the appellant was granted permission to appeal the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing his protection appeal following a hearing which took place on 4 November 2025.
2. I have continued the anonymity order made by the First-Tier Tribunal. I have considered the public interest in open justice but conclude that it is outweighed by the importance of facilitating the discharge of the United Kingdom’s obligations to those claiming international protection because of the need for confidentiality.
3. By way of a Rule 24 response the respondent accepted that there were material errors of law in the decision of the First-tier Tribunal and proposed that the matter be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a rehearing.
4. On 8 April 2026, Upper Tribunal Judge Blum made the following directions:
1. No later than 10 days after these directions are sent the parties must inform the Upper Tribunal whether they object to the ‘error of law’ appeal being determined without a hearing pursuant to rule 34 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 on the basis that an error of law has been identified and a judge will write a brief decision remitting the decision back to the First-tier Tribunal (IAC) for a full de novo hearing.
2. If the Upper Tribunal does not receive any correspondence from the parties pursuant to (1) it will proceed on the basis that neither party objects to the appeal being determined pursuant to rule 34 on the basis set out above and remitted to the First-tier Tribunal (IAC).
5. This matter had been listed for a hearing on 22 April 2026 but did not proceed as it was vacated with the permission of Judge Blum. No response has been received to Judge Blum’s directions as of 20 April 2026.
6. The Upper Tribunal accepts that the errors identified in the grounds of appeal are both made out and material for the following reasons. The short point is that the appeal was heard in the absence of both the appellant and his representative. In the Rule 24 response, the respondent corroborated the appellant’s claim that he was moved from the address which he had originally provided and conceded that it could not be ascertained that he was sent the notice of hearing. It was accepted by the judge at the hearing that the appellant’s representatives had not been served with the notice of hearing. Given the respondent’s concession as well as the indications that the appellant is particularly vulnerable, the judge’s decision to proceed with the appeal was procedurally unfair.
7. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is therefore set aside, with no preserved findings.
8. As neither party objected to the course of action proposed by Judge Blum, this matter is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing before a different judge.

Notice of Decision
The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did involve the making of an error on a point of law.
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside.
The appeal is remitted, de novo, to the First-tier Tribunal to be reheard by a different judge.

T Kamara

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

20 April 2026