UI-2025-005913

  • 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-2025-005913
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/62208/2023
LP/03338/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 10th March 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BLUNDELL

Between

RM
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

DETERMINED ON THE PAPERS UNDER RULE 34

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. This order is made because the underlying appeal concerns the appellant’s international protection claim.


DECISION AND REASONS
1. The outcome of this appeal is agreed between the parties and this decision is in correspondingly short form.
2. The appellant appeals with the permission of First-tier Tribunal Judge Mulready against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Latta, who dismissed his appeal against the respondent’s refusal of his claim for international protection.
3. On 27 January 2026, the respondent filed a reply to the appellant’s notice of appeal. She conceded the appeal, and invited the Upper Tribunal to remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal for the following reasons:
It is accepted that the FTTJ materially erred when he failed to consider the expert report. Although he makes reference in his determination at [27] and [42] he makes no specific reference to that report. The submissions by the Rep including reference to the report at [21] but the FTTJ fails to make any consideration.
Furthermore, there are no findings by the FTTJ with regard to the appellant’s father. He makes a finding which is incorrect factually and this may have vitiated the credibility findings.
4. By an email sent on 17 February, in response to directions given by Upper Tribunal Judge Owens, the appellant’s solicitors confirmed that they were content with the outcome proposed by the respondent, and that they did not seek an oral hearing in the Upper Tribunal.
5. I consider the respondent’s concessions to have been properly made. Unfortunately, the judge clearly failed to consider the expert report, and failed to make findings as to the matters set out at [4] of the appellant’s grounds of appeal. I am satisfied that those errors were material to the assessment of the appellant’s credibility for the reasons given in the grounds of appeal, and that the proper course in those circumstances is for the decision of the First-tier Tribunal to be set aside.
6. In agreement with the parties, I consider that the appeal must be reconsidered afresh, with no findings of fact preserved. As such, I also agree with the parties that the appeal should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be reheard de novo by a judge other than Judge Latta.
Notice of Decision
The appeal to the Upper Tribunal is allowed. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard afresh by a different judge.


Mark Blundell

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber


4 March 2026