Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-000380
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/58897/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 3 September 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RASTOGI
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SHEPHERD

Between

RH (Iran)
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Litigant in Person
For the Respondent: Mrs Arif, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Birmingham Civil Justice Centre on 21 August 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 him. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
Background
1. This matter concerns an appeal against the Respondent’s decision letter of 19 March 2024, refusing the Appellant’s asylum and protection claim made on 1 December 2022.
2. The Appellant’s claim is made on the basis that he as at risk from state actors in Iran, having worked as a taxi driver and transported men from Sardesht to Mirabad who were said to be responsible for the murder of Colonel Mohsen Dalwand such that the Appellant was also under suspicion by association. He fears that on return he will be executed by Etelaat/the Iranian regime.
3. In its decision letter of 1 December 2022, the Respondent accepted that the Appellant was of Iranian Kurdish ethnicity but did not accept that he was of adverse attention to the Iranian authorities.
4. The Appellant appealed the refusal decision.
5. The appeal was heard by First-tier Tribunal Judge Dixon (“the Judge”) at Birmingham on 16 June 2024, who later dismissed it in his decision dated 23 July 2025.
6. The Appellant applied for permission to appeal to this Tribunal on two grounds, namely that the Judge erred in failing to consider evidence and/or apply anxious scrutiny and failed to consider the claim and its plausibility in the context of Iran. The Appellant also applied for an extension of time for filing the application late.
7. On 14 January 2026 the Judge granted an extension of time but refused permission to appeal.
8. On 27 January 2026, the Appellant applied to the Upper Tribunal for permission on the same grounds.
9. Permission to appeal was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Sheridan on 2 March 2026, stating:
“1. It is arguable that the judge erred by finding it implausible that the authorities would suspect the appellant’s involvement without having regard to Country Guidance caselaw indicating that the authorities are quick to suspect Kurds: see the discussion of the “hair trigger” approach in HB (Kurds) Iran CG [2018] UKUT 430 (IAC).
2. All grounds can be pursued”.
10. The Respondent sent a rule 24 response on 26 March 2026 stating:
“3. The Respondent concedes the errors identified.
4. A review of the Appellant’s screening interview at Q4.1 (RB p.22) confirms the Appellant did in fact state three men, and the Respondent accepts that the Appellant later submitted corrections prior to the refusal decision. The refusal letter also repeatedly referred to three men, raising no discrepancy. It is therefore accepted that the Judge erred in treating this as an inconsistency at para [7].
4. The Respondent further accepts that the Judge failed to engage with the submissions at ASA paras 12–13, which specifically argued that the Appellant faces an enhanced risk as a Kurd. This was a material issue which required assessment.
5. Given the shortness of the determination and the concessions above, the Respondent submits that the decision as a whole is unsafe and cannot stand.
6. The Respondent is content for the matter to be remitted to the First‑tier Tribunal for a de novo rehearing.”.
11. Unfortunately, for reasons which, although unclear, appear to concern issues with the Respondent’s ability to upload documents to the Tribunal’s electronic filing system, the rule 24 response did not reach the Tribunal until the day on which the hearing came before us, 21 August 2026.
The Hearing
12. The Appellant appeared in person with the assistance of Tribunal-appointed interpreter Mr Karadakhy, speaking Kurdish Sorani. Mrs Arif appeared in person to represent the Respondent.
13. The Appellant confirmed he previously had solicitors, but they were no longer representing him such that he was now a litigant in person.
14. Mrs Arif offered her apologies for the Tribunal not receiving the rule 24 response prior to the hearing. She confirmed the Respondent’s position was that the Judge’s decision was infected by material error(s) of law as set out in the grounds of appeal and rule 24 response and must be set aside. She also maintained the position that the appeal could be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for hearing afresh.
15. Judge Rastogi explained what this meant for the Appellant and stated that the Tribunal’s provisional view was in line with the Respondent’s position for the reasons stated in the rule 24 response. The Appellant stated that he understood what had happened and would leave the matter of the appeal and the forum for any remaking to the Tribunal. Judge Rastogi and I conferred and Judge Rastogi confirmed we agreed with there being material errors of law within Judge Dixon’s decision as set out in the grounds of appeal and conceded in the rule 24 response, with these errors infecting the entire decision such that it needed to be set aside with no findings preserved.
16. The Appellant provided a postal address and confirmed that his preferred language for an interpreter at the next hearing would be Kurdish Sorani. No further directions were required.
17. Judge Rastogi confirmed we would (and hereby do) record the Respondent’s concession, and the Appellant’s agreement that the Judge’s decision does contain material error(s) of law which infect the decision as a whole such that it cannot stand. Despite the narrowness of the issues, due to the extent of fact-finding required and given the Appellant did not receive a fair hearing previously due to the errors of law found, we find the appropriate course of action is for the matter to be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for hearing afresh.

Notice of Decision
18. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error/errors of law and we set it aside.
19. We remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh decision on all issues, to be heard afresh by a judge other than Judge Dixon. No findings of fact are preserved.
20. Given the claim concerns issues of protection, an anonymity order is made concerning the Appellant.

L. Shepherd
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
26 August 2026