Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-000205
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/68844/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 6th of May 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RICHARDS

Between

HA
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms L. Simak, Counsel
For the Respondent: Mr K. Ojo, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 20 April 2026

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant and his wife and children that are subject of this appeal are 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 or his wife or his children that are subject of this appeal. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
Introduction and procedural history
1. This is an appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal made on 13 November 2025 refusing the appeal of the Appellant against the decision of the Respondent dated 18 December 2023 refusing his asylum claim which was made on 13 December 2021. The Appellant is an Algerian national and his wife and two children who are also currently in the UK are dependent upon his claim for asylum.
2. The primary issue before the First-tier Tribunal was the credibility of the asylum claim. The Respondent accepted that if the claim was credible then there was no sufficiency of protection available and no internal relocation available. At the hearing both parties also addressed a stand-alone Article 8 claim. The Appellant and his wife both gave evidence at the hearing and the Appellant was legally represented.
3. The First-tier Tribunal Judge (“the Judge”) found that the Appellant had made a fabricated claim for asylum. He also found that the Appellant and his family “could reintegrate into society in Algeria and to expect him to do so would in no way infringe Article 8” [32].
4. The Appellant applied for permission to appeal and on 12 January 2026 a different First-tier Tribunal than that who made the substantive decision, decided to refuse permission stating that none of the grounds raised an arguable error of law.
5. The Appellant renewed their application for permission to appeal at the Upper Tribunal and on 12 February 2026 UTJ Ruddick granted permission on all grounds.
6. The case came before me at a hearing on 20 April 2026 at Field House in London. I had regard to the error-of-law bundle of 379 pages (which Ms Simak and Mr Ojo also had access to), the Appellant’s skeleton argument before the Upper Tribunal, the Appellant’s skeleton argument that was before the First-tier Tribunal, and a 136-page bundle of authorities. I also had regard to the submissions of Ms Simak and Mr Ojo.
7. The submissions are not recorded in full here as they have been audio recorded. Ms Simak argued in favour of all Grounds of appeal and Mr Ojo maintained the Respondent’s opposition to each Ground.
8. At the conclusion of the hearing I reserved my judgment which I am delivering here.
9. An anonymity order was made by the Judge on 13 November 2025 and I note that the Appellant has made a claim for asylum and I continue that order. In doing so I have had regard to Guidance Note 2022 No.2: Anonymity Orders and Hearings in Private and Kambadzi v SSHD [2011] UKSC 23. I have considered the strong public interest in open justice. Nonetheless, in this case it is outweighed by the United Kingdom’s obligations towards an applicant for international protection.
Grounds of appeal
10. Ground 1 asserts that the Judge failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting the reliability of the Algerian court documents relied on by the Appellant.
11. Ground 2 asserts that the Judge failed to properly take into account witness statements from third parties confirming the Appellant’s political activities in Algeria.
12. Ground 3 asserts that the Judge erred in finding that the Appellant had not been arrested as claimed, given both the Appellant’s evidence and exhibits, and also the independent country evidence.
Error-of-law
13. Ms Simak whilst arguing all Grounds, focussed in her submissions on Ground 3 and in particular the alleged failure to adequately consider the independent country evidence, and thus I begin my consideration there.
14. The Appellant’s skeleton argument before the First-tier Tribunal included several paragraphs addressing the country evidence within the First-tier Tribunal bundle and in particular the Home Department’s guidance such as Country policy and information note: actors of protection, Algeria, August 2020.
15. Within the section headed ‘submissions’ of the First-tier Tribunal’s judgement, the Judge said at [14]
“…The appellant’s representative then highlighted some evidence of the country information. However, I reminded the representative that the respondent had already accepted that if credible the appellant would be at risk. There was therefore no need to provide a detailed background to the country information evidencing that if the claim were credible that the appellant would be at risk.”
16. In the ‘findings’ section of the First-tier Tribunal’s judgment, which includes both findings and the Judge’s discussion of the evidence, there is no explicit reference to any of the country evidence.
17. The Judge made his adverse credibility finding against the Appellant for several stated reasons. These included finding inconsistency in the dates relating to documents submitted by the Appellant [18-22]; finding it implausible that the Appellant would be released multiple times by the Algerian authorities if had failed to answer some form of judicial summons [23]; finding it implausible that he would be released from a police station due to a protest outside the police station [25]; finding that although the Appellant attended political protests in Algeria he was not arrested and detained [27]; rejecting the Appellant’s explanation for how he left Algeria without being detained at the airport [28]; and an overall finding that there is no interest from the Algerian authorities upon him [30].
18. The Judge stated at [17] that no single factor led him to make the adverse credibility finding. He also stated at [16-17] that “a failure to refer to every piece of evidence should not be construed as meaning it was not considered” and he “considered all the evidence, in the round, with the highest standard of fairness in mind and with the most anxious scrutiny”.
19. However I find that the Judge has erred in failing to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the elements of the country evidence that support the plausibility of the Appellant’s claim, particularly in the circumstance where it was clearly referred to in the Appellant’s skeleton argument and the Judge refused to hear oral submissions on the issue.
20. The Judge was under a duty to explain when he was considering the plausibility of the Appellant’s case how he factored in the country evidence that supported the Appellant’s claim, and why he did not find it persuasive in the light of all of the other evidence.
21. The Judge did appropriately refer himself to the guidance in Budhatkoki [2014] UKUT 00041 (IAC) where it states at [14] that
“It is generally unnecessary and unhelpful for First-tier Tribunal judgments to rehearse every detail or issue raised in a case. This leads to judgments becoming overly long and confused and is not a proportionate approach to deciding cases. It is, however, necessary for judges to identify and resolve key conflicts in the evidence and explain in clear and brief terms their reasons, so that the parties can understand why they have won and lost.”
22. In this case I find that the Judge has not been sufficiently clear, such that the Appellant could understand why he lost, in regard to why the Judge was not persuaded by the elements of the country evidence that supported the plausibility, and thus ultimately credibility and reliability, of the Appellant’s evidence. This evidence was before the judge, highlighted in the Appellant’s skeleton argument, the Judge refused to hear submissions on it, and he made no mention of it in his judgment. This in my judgment constitutes a material error of law consisting of the judge providing inadequate reasons for his decision, given that the country evidence was one of the central planks of the Appellant’s case.
23. Having found a material error of law in relation to Ground 3, I need not and do not go on to make findings on Grounds 1 and 2.
Disposal
24. Ms Simak submitted that if an error of law is found then the case should be retained by the Upper Tribunal with the provision for additional live evidence from the Appellant. Mr Ojo submitted a neutral position on whether, if an error of law is found, the case should be retained in the Upper Tribunal or remitted back to the First-tier Tribunal.
25. I have taken account of [7.2] of the Practice Statements of the Immigration and Asylum Chambers of the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal and the submissions of both parties. Having had regard both to [7.2 (a)] and [7.2 (b)] I have determined that it is appropriate to remit this case to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing.
26. Nothing in this decision should be taken as an indication of whether or not the Appellant’s appeal will ultimately succeed or not. That is a matter now for the rehearing.
Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal made on 13 November 2025 involved the making of a material error on a point of law.
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside and this case is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a rehearing before a different Judge than the one who made the decision on 13 November 2025. No findings are preserved.

Judge Richards

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

30 April 2026