UI-2026-000122

  • 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-2026-000122
linked to closed appeal UI-2026-000644
First-tier Tribunal No: HU/60019/2024 &
LU/01757/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 25 March 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KHAN

Between

VLAD-PETRU IUGA
Appellant before the FtT
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent before the FtT
­

DECISION AND REASONS
(Decided on the papers without a hearing)
1. The parties are referred to as they were before the First-tier Tribunal (‘FtT’).
2. The appellant is a Romanian national. His appeal against the respondent’s decision dated 29 July 2024 to refuse his human rights application to join his sister (sponsor) in the UK was successful at a hearing held before First-tier Tribunal Judge Lester on 3 August 2025. The Judge’s decision allowing the appeal on Article 8 ECHR grounds only) was promulgated on 29 September 2025.
3. The respondent and the appellant appealed the decision. Permission was refused to the appellant but granted to the respondent on grounds relating to a material misdirection in law relating to the Article 8 finding (see paragraph 4 of the permission grant dated 5 January 2026).
4. A renewed application for permission to appeal in UI-2026-000644 was made by the appellant to the Upper Tribunal. This was refused by UTJ Lindsley on 17 February 2026. UTJ Lindsley noted that it was open to the appellant to put in observations in a Rule 24 notice with respect to all matters.
5. On 20 March 2026, the appellant filed a Rule 24 notice in relation to the remaining live appeal in UI-2026-00122. He agreed with the respondent that the FtT had made a material error of law and invited the Upper Tribunal to set aside the decision and remit the appeal to the FtT for a de novo hearing.
6. In light of the appellant’s written submissions set out in the Rule 24 notice, no hearing has been necessary to determine whether there has been an error of law. I have been able to deal with the issue on the papers.
7. It follows that the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Lester contained a material error of law and must be set aside. Having considered the decision of Begum [2023] UKUT 46 IAC, I consider that it is appropriate for the hearing to be remitted to the FtT for a de novo hearing in the remaining live appeal before a judge other than Judge Lester with no preserved findings.
Notice of Decision
8. The appeal is allowed as the making of the decision of the FtT promulgated on 29 September 2025 involved the making of a material error of law.
9. The decision of the FtT is set aside.
10. This matter is remitted to the FtT for a fresh hearing. No findings are preserved.


K.A. Khan

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

20 March 2026