Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-000107;
UI-2026-000108; UI-2026-000110;
UI2026-000111
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/66037/2024;
PA/62516/2024; PA/66046/2024;
PA/66043/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 25th March 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BULPITT

Between

MI
MYI
NI
KI
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellants are granted anonymity.

No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the appellants, likely to lead members of the public to identify the appellants. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellants appealed to the First-tier Tribunal against the respondent’s decisions to refuse their protection and human rights claims to remain in the United Kingdom. Because they are all part of the same family their appeals were consolidated and heard together. The appeals were dismissed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Buckwell (the Judge) in a decision promulgated on 11 November 2025.
2. The appellants were granted permission to appeal against the Judge’s decision by another First-tier Tribunal Judge on three grounds: (1) that the Judge erred by stating that the parties agreed that the Refugee Convention was not engaged, when in fact the parties agreed the Convention was engaged; (2) the Judge failed to give adequate reasons for an adverse credibility finding, when the respondent had made a concession accepting the account was true; and (3) the Judge erred by failing to give adequate reasons for his conclusion that the appellant would receive adequate protection from state authorities in their home country.
3. The respondent has served a response to the appellants’ notice of appeal in accordance with r24 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (the Procedure Rules). In that response the response concedes that the Judge erred in each of the ways asserted and that the errors made by the Judge were material. The respondent submits that the decision of the Judge should be set aside and the matter remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh hearing.
4. Given the concessions made by the respondent I am satisfied that it would be consistent with the tribunal overriding objective to decide this appeal without a hearing in accordance with r34 of the Procedure Rules.
5. I am satisfied that the respondent’s concession is appropriate and that Judge’s decision did contain material errors of law and must be set aside. The Judge’s conclusion that the Refugee Convention did not apply was contrary to the agreed position of the parties and the evidence in the Country Policy Information Note. The Judge’s conclusions about the credibility of the appellant’s claimed fear is impossible to reconcile with the concession made by the respondent about that fear. In the context of the decision as a whole, inadequate reasons were given for the conclusion that there would be adequate state protection available for the appellants in their home country.
Notice of Decision
The decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Buckwell contained an error of law and is set aside.
The appellants’ appeals are remitted to be heard by a different Judge in the First-tier Tribunal.

Luke Bulpitt

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

23 March 2026