Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-000256
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/62474/2024
LP/01906/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 5th of June 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LANDES

Between

M B
(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 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. By directions issued on 13 March 2026 (see annex attached), I indicated that having considered the rule 24 response, I proposed to set aside the decision for material error of law and remit the decision to the First-Tier Tribunal with no findings preserved, unless representations to the contrary were made within 14 days of the date of issue of directions.
2. To date, there have been no representations to the contrary.
3. For the reasons given in the directions annexed, I therefore decide as I indicated I would.
Notice of Decision
The judge’s decision contains material errors of law and is set aside.
The case is remitted to the First-Tier Tribunal (Hatton Cross) for consideration by another judge, with no findings preserved.
Directions
A Turkish interpreter will be provided for the hearing in the First-Tier Tribunal unless the appellant notifies the First-Tier Tribunal that one is not required, or (such notification to be at least 14 days before the hearing) that a different language is required.

A-R Landes

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

26 May 2026

Annex

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-000256
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/62474/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Directions Issued:

13 March 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LANDES

Between

M B
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

DIRECTIONS

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. I make an anonymity order. The appellant has claimed asylum, and I consider that the public interest in open justice is outweighed by the need for confidentiality in the asylum process and the potential risk to the appellant if his identity is disclosed.
2. The appellant is a citizen of Turkey of Kurdish ethnicity. He claimed asylum on 21 October 2022 and his claim was refused on 23 April 2024. A judge of the First-Tier Tribunal (“the FTJ”) dismissed his appeal by decision promulgated on 19 November 2025. Permission to appeal was granted on all grounds in the First-Tier Tribunal.
3. The grounds aver that the FTJ incorrectly recorded the issues, missing out part of the appellant’s claim, including sur place activities, made relevant errors of fact, incompletely assessed country guidance and incompletely assessed the appellant’s claim about risk on return due to Kurdish ethnicity and perceived support for PKK, including relying on out-of-date CPINs.
4. In the rule 24 response, the respondent accepts that the FTJ failed to consider the entirety of the issues on appeal, which was relevant to risk on return, that she inadequately assessed the evidence and made material errors in its consideration.
5. Having considered the papers, I agree with the respondent. The FTJ did not consider all the issues raised, as set out in the grounds she missed out some of the issues from the skeleton argument including sur place activity which is potentially relevant to risk on return. When assessing the risk factors in accordance with country guidance she missed three risk factors which were not in dispute (see paragraph 9 of the grounds). She also made errors about the evidence, as set out at paragraphs 6 and 7 of the grounds, errors relevant to credibility.
6. The respondent proposes that the decision be set aside and remitted to the First-Tier Tribunal to be considered de novo. I agree that appears suitable because the FTJ did not consider all the issues and made errors which were relevant to credibility. The appeal will, I conclude, need to be decided afresh, with no facts preserved.
7. Any representations that the decision should not be set aside, or should not be remitted to the First-Tier Tribunal, or that some facts should be preserved, should be made in writing within 14 days of the date these directions are sent to the parties. Following that period, if there are no representations to the contrary, these directions will stand as the error of law decision without a hearing pursuant to rule 34 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008. If there are representations, those will of course be considered before a final decision is issued.

A-R Landes

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

13 February 2026