Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-000409
First-tier Tribunal No: HU/53132/2024
LH/00558/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 17 July 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LANE

Between

MM

(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr Wilford
For the Respondent: Mr Walker, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 2 July 2026

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 a male citizen of Bangladesh. He appealed to the First-tier Tribunal against a decision of the Secretary of State dated 22 December 2022 refusing him leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed his appeal and the appellant now appeals to the Upper Tribunal.
2. At [20] the First-tier Tribunal found:
The appellant clearly has a close network of friends in the UK who support him regularly financially with his needs. He confirmed in oral evidence that he has at least four financial supporters. He has been in touch with his family in Bangladesh. At the hearing he said that he had not spoken to his family for more than three months, but had in the past spoken to them every day. They had an argument because they felt that he was not a good son because he needed financial support. I accept that the appellant's family may not have the financial means to support him, but I find that his friends in the UK who currently give him money would assist him if he were to move back to Bangladesh. Whilst I accept that financial support would not continue indefinitely, I find that his friends would be very unlikely to abandon [him] in what would be a disruptive move. [my emphasis]
3. Inter alia, the grounds of appeal contend that the judge based his finding on a misunderstanding of the appellant’s evidence and/or gave inadequate reasons for reaching the finding. The parties have now had the opportunity of considering the recording and transcript of the appellant’s oral evidence at the First-tier Tribunal hearing. Part of the evidence was as follows:
36. Just to be clear, your friends were supporting you in the UK and will be able to support in Bangladesh? I don’t have anyone in Bangladesh who will help me out, all my friends in UK
37. I am asking about those friends? I have no one in Bangladesh
38. Your friends in the UK will be able to support you if you go back? Because I am here, No sympathy, they will not support me.
4. Mr Walker, for the Secretary of State, accepted that the judge appears either to have misunderstood the appellant’s evidence regarding the likelihood of his friends in the United Kingdom continuing to support his if he returns to Bangladesh or has made a finding at [3] for which, in the light of the appellant’s unequivocal evidence at the hearing, he has given insufficient reasons.
5. I agree with the representatives. Whilst the judge was not obliged to accept the appellant’s evidence that his friends would not support him in Bangladesh, he should have explained why he did not accept that evidence but, on the contrary, found that these individuals would support the appellant. The judge does state that he did believe it ‘very unlikely’ that the friends would continue to support the appellant but again he does not give any reason for reaching such a firm finding of fact (‘very unlikely'’) when the only evidence he had as to the intentions of the friends was that of the appellant.
6. I accept Mr Wilford’s submission that, given the appellant’s poor state of mental health, the judge’s finding goes to the heart of the analysis and the question of very significant obstacles to his integration in Bangladesh. For that reason, I find that the judge’s error is such that the decision must be set aside. On Mr Wilford’s submission (to which Mr Walker raised no objection) I set aside also the findings of fact of the First-tier Tribunal, save that the appellant is seriously ill [20] and that he would live in Dhaka on return to Bangladesh [29].
Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside. None of the findings of fact shall stand save that that the appellant is seriously ill [20] and that he would live in Dhaka on return to Bangladesh [29]. The appeal is returned to the First-tier Tribunal for that Tribunal to remake the decision following a hearing de novo.

C. N. Lane

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

Dated: 2 July 2026