Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-000434
UI-2026-000435
UI-2026-000436

First-tier Tribunal No: HU/59522/2024
HU/59673/2024
HU/59674/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 9th March 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KHAN

Between

ASHMA SHRESTHA (1)
DEEPU KHADGI SHAHI (2)
ADVIK SHAHI SHRESTHA (3)

(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellants
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

DECISION AND REASONS
(Decided on the papers without a hearing)
1. The first and second appellants are married and the third appellant is their dependant child. The appellants are nationals of Nepal. By these proceedings they appeal with permission against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 3 November 2025 by which their human rights claims were dismissed.
2. Permission to appeal on grounds 1, 2, 3, 4 & 6 was granted by Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Dieu on 03 February 2026. In summary, those grounds submit that the Judge failed to consider and determine an adjournment application leading to procedural unfairness; misdirected themselves and failed to properly apply Article 8 ECHR; failed to take into account material matters when assessing the best interests of the children; adopted an unfair approach towards credibility and evidential assessment in the absence of representation; made inconsistent findings regarding the child’s circumstances and language; and, failed to give adequate reasons on key issues.
3. On 10 February 2026, the respondent filed her Rule 24 response. She conceded that the First-tier Tribunal had made a material error of law due to procedural unfairness, and that the determination should be set aside for a fresh oral hearing in the First-tier Tribunal, in line with the overriding objective.
4. In light of the respondent’s written concessions, no hearing has been necessary to determine whether there has been an error of law. I have been able to deal with the issue on the papers.
5. It follows that the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Beg contained a material error of law and must be set aside. Having considered the decision of Begum [2023] UKUT 46 IAC, I consider that it is appropriate for the hearing to be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing before a judge other than Judge Beg.

Notice of Decision
6. The appeal is allowed as the making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 3 November 2025 involved a material error of law.
7. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside.
8. This matter is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh hearing. No findings are preserved.

K.A. Khan

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

2 March 2026