Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case Nos: UI-2026-000308
UI-2026-000309
UI-2026-000310
First-tier Tribunal Nos: PA/02719/2024
PA/02720/2024
PA/02721/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 30th March 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HOSHI

Between

(1) MMA
(2) AOA
(3) AAA
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellants
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellants: Mr Karem, instructed by Atlantic Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms Lecointe, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 24 March 2026

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the anonymity order made by the First-tier Tribunal shall continue in force. No-one shall publish or reveal any information that is likely to lead members of the public to identify the Appellants, including their names or addresses. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS

1. By a decision promulgated on 11 November 2025, Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Farrelly (sitting as a First-tier Tribunal Judge) dismissed the Appellants’ appeals against the Respondent’s 8 May 2024 decisions to refuse their 17 January 2024 protection and human rights claims.

2. Thereafter, the Appellants applied in-time for permission to appeal. By a decision dated 19 January 2026, First-tier Tribunal Judge Aldridge granted permission to appeal on all grounds. The appeals came before me for an error of law hearing on 24 March 2025.

3. The 1st and 2nd Appellant are a husband and wife aged 36 and 35 years, respectively. The 3rd Appellant is their daughter aged 5 years. They are all nationals of Nigeria. They arrived in the UK in 2022. The 2nd Appellant had been granted leave as a student, and the 1st and 3rd Appellants had been granted leave as her (the 2nd Appellant’s) dependants.

4. In very short summary, the basis of the Appellants’ protection and human rights claims was that the 2nd and 3rd Appellants were at risk of forcible subjection to female genital mutilation (‘FGM’) on return to Nigeria. The Respondent refused the claims on the basis that the Appellants’ account was not accepted to be credible and that, in any event, they would have a sufficiency of protection against any risk and/or could internally relocate to avoid any risk.

5. Regrettably, upon reading Judge Farrelly’s decision, it became apparent to me that the latter part of his decision (from around paragraph 11 onwards) was about an entirely different group of Appellants. Both cases concerned a claimed risk of FGM on return to Nigeria but, beyond that, there were various glaring points of factual distinction. For example, in the second case, the Appellants were a woman and her three adult children, the woman had separated from her husband and he was not an Appellant, and the woman was the subject of an earlier decision of the First-tier Tribunal decision from 2018 (thus, she had clearly arrived in the UK long before 2022).

6. Surprisingly and, again, regrettably, the Appellants’ solicitors’ grounds of appeal had not raised this issue and nor had it been identified by Judge Aldridge at the permission stage. The Respondent had not filed a rule 24 response and so she had not identified it either.

7. I raised this issue with the representatives at the outset of hearing. They concurred with my analysis. Thereafter, the following points were agreed by both representatives:

a. Judge Farrelly determined the incorrect Appellants’ appeals.

b. That was a Robinson obvious material error of law – what happened was incontrovertibly procedurally unfair.

c. Therefore, even though the error had not been identified in the grounds of appeal upon which permission was granted, I was entitled to (and should) identify it for myself, grant permission on it, and find it to be a material error of law.

d. Given that the Appellants had been deprived of a procedurally fair appeal, the appropriate course of action in terms of disposal was for Judge Farrelly’s decision to be set aside in its entirety and for the appeals to be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh hearing.

8. I was also in agreement that this was the correct course of action in the circumstances, and so I followed it.

Notice of Decision

The decision of Judge Farrelly contains a material error of law and is set aside in its entirety.

The Appellants appeals are remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh hearing before a differently constituted Tribunal.

B. Hoshi

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

25 March 2026