UI-2026-000070

  • 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-2026-000070

First-tier Tribunal No:
EA/01348/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 20th February 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RUDDICK

Between

ISATU KOROMA
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Appeal Determined without a hearing pursuant to Rule 34
of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008


DECISION AND REASONS

1. The appellant is a citizen of Sierra Leone who applied for entry clearance to the UK under Appendix EU (Family Permit) as the spouse of a relevant EEA citizen. The respondent refused her application, the appellant appealed, and her appeal was dismissed by the First-tier Tribunal in a decision dated 13 January 2025. The appellant then applied for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on the grounds that it was procedurally unfair that the hearing before the FTT had gone ahead in spite of the sponsor have emailed the FTT to request an adjournment on the grounds of illness.
2. On 17 December 2025, the FTT granted permission to appeal noting that the request for an adjournment had not been placed before a judge for consideration, such that it had been arguably unfair for the hearing to proceed in his absence.
3. On 25 January 2026, the Upper Tribunal issued the following directions:
“The respondent is to serve a Rule 24 Response within 7 days indicating whether the appeal is opposed in the light of the reasons given for the grant of permission and the if the appeal is not opposed whether it is agreed that the matter should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh hearing.”
4. On 30 January 2026, the respondent complied with those directions by writing to Tribunal stating:
“In light of the grant of permission to appeal, dated 17 December 2025, R does not oppose the Appellant’s application for permission to appeal. Having regard to the principles in AEB v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWCA Civ 1512 and section 7 of the Practice Statement on disposal of appeals in the Upper Tribunal, it is appropriate to remit the case to the First-Tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing.”
5. As the respondent agrees that the decision should be set aside and remitted to the FTT for a fresh hearing, a further hearing in this appeal would serve no practical purpose.
6. Having taken into account the same guidance referred to by the respondent, I agree that remittal is appropriate. This is because the appellant did not receive a fair hearing before the FTT.

Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 13 January 2025 is set aside in its entirety and the appeal is remitted to the First-tier tribunal for a fresh hearing on all issues, before any other judge.



E. Ruddick

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber


12 February 2026