Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-000233
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/03945/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 20 July 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SOLANKI

Between

NK
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Respondent
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Appellant

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms Kirwan, Counsel
For the Respondent: Mr Parvar, Senior Home Officer Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 21 April 2026

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.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant is an asylum seeker who fears persecution on return to Turkey. I make an anonymity order accordingly.
2. The Appellant is a national of Turkey, born in 2002.
3. On 30 September 2022 he applied for asylum in the UK. His claim is based on political activity for the People’s Democratic Party (‘HDP’) and his ethnicity.
4. In a decision dated 31 January 2024 his claim was refused by the Respondent. He appealed the decision of the Respondent.
5. His appeal came before the First-Tier Tribunal (‘FtT’) Judge Mill (‘the Judge’) on 17 November 2025. On the same day he dismissed his appeal on protection and human rights grounds. The Appellant was absent from the hearing and not represented. There was no bundle or skeleton argument before the FtT from the Appellant. There was a bundle from the Respondent.
6. The Judge states at §11 of his decision that there he put the case back until 10.30am so that enquiries could be made as to whether the Appellant had attended, there was no information or evidence to justify delay or postponement and it would not have been in the interests of justice to do so. The Judge was ‘satisfied that intimation of the appeal hearing had been made to the Appellant.’
7. The Appellant sought permission to appeal on 2 December 2025. He advanced the following grounds:
i. There were procedural errors resulting in a material error of law. Neither he nor his legal representatives were aware of the hearing taking place on 11 November 2025. The Judge appears to have been unaware that the Appellant had instructed lawyers as he does not mention this.
ii. The Judge failed to conduct a proper assessment under Rule 28 of the First-Tier Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chambers Rules 2014 prior to proceeding. It is not clear how the Judge determined that the Appellant had been notified of the hearing. Whilst it is said that enquiries were made as to whether the Appellant had attended, no steps appear to have bene taken to contact the Appellant or his representatives. The Appellant had been disadvantaged and deprived of a fair hearing.
8. The grounds of appeal were supported by a signed witness statement from Ms Manimala Thirumaney at Shervins Solicitors, a practising solicitor and Level 2 accredited immigration adviser supervisor at the firm. She said that on 2 May 2024 they informed the Home Office they were acting for the Appellant. On 6 June 2024 the firm had written to Hatton Cross by email to put them on notice that were acting for the Appellant. The firm was not notified of the hearing, nor did they receive any correspondence from the Tribunal after 6 June 2024. The Appellant does not have a computer or access to emails aside from on old phone (which he was having problems with). He was only able to gain access to his emails on 22 November 2025. There was also a witness statement from the Appellant.
9. Permission to appeal was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge (UTJ) McWilliam in a decision dated 16 February 2026. She admitted the application out of time in the interests of justice. She said it was arguable there was procedural irregularity and that the FtT did not send a notice of hearing to the Appellant’s solicitors or give adequate reasons for proceeding in his absence.
10. A Rule 24 Response was prepared by the Respondent on 17 March 2026. This opposed the appeal. However, at para. 12 of the response it was said that if further documents were supplied to address matters raised in the grounds, the Respondent would be amenable to revisiting the decision.
11. The matter came before me on 21 April 2026 in an error of law hearing. At that hearing, Mr Parvar, for the Respondent, agreed before me that there was a material error of law. This was on the basis that he had been shown the email of 6 June 2024 from Shervins solicitors to the FtT at the hearing. He accepted that there had been procedural unfairness. I was also shown that email. The concession made by Mr Parvar was a sensible concession given the grounds of appeal advanced, the fact that the Judge was unaware that the Appellant had lawyers who had been on record for some time and that these lawyers were not notified of the hearing.
12. The parties agreed that in the circumstances the matter ought to be remitted to the First-Tier Tribunal.
Notice of Decision
13. For the aforementioned reasons, I find that there is a material error of law in the decision of the First-Tier Tribunal.
14. Considering 7.2 of the Practice Statement of the Immigration and Asylum Chambers of the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal and the nature of the error identified, I remit this matter to the FtT, to be heard before any Judge aside from Judge Mill.

P. Solanki

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

30 June 2026