Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-000457
(HU/02075/2024)

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

2nd August 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LANE
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALIS

Between

MR AHSAN SALEEM AHMAD
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
AND

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr Hashmi, Solicitor
For the Respondent: Ms Newton, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
Interpreter: Ms Amir

Heard at Manchester Civil Justice Centre on the 13 July 2026

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant is a national of Pakistan, and he originally appealed against a decision taken by the Respondent on 24 October 2024 to refuse to grant him leave to remain on human rights grounds.
BACKGROUND AND MATTERS IN ISSUE
2. By its decision dated 18 November 2025 the First-tier Tribunal (FtT) dismissed the Appellant’s appeal. The appeal was determined in the Appellant's absence.
3. The Appellant appealed this decision and whilst permission to appeal was initially refused by the FtT on 7 January 2026 permission to appeal was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Lindsley on 4 March 2026. In granting permission, the Upper Tribunal considered it arguable that the proceedings were ultimately unfair because the Appellant may inadvertently not have received notice of the relisted hearing.
4. Upper Tribunal Judge Lindsley directed the Appellant to provide the evidence he said he would have produced had he known of the hearing, so that the Upper Tribunal could assess whether there had been material unfairness in the appeal proceeding in his absence.
5. We did not make an anonymity order as one was not made in the FtT and there appeared no reason to make an order now.
SUBMISSIONS ON ERROR IN LAW
6. Mr Hashmi adopted the Appellant’s Rule 25 response which was on [13-14] of the composite bundle. Mr Hashmi explained the Appellant had not appeared at the hearing fixed for 4 September 2025 but had previously requested on 29 August 2025 an adjournment because of his medical issues. He received confirmation of receipt of that email on 2 September 2025 but was unaware that the hearing had been adjourned until 12 November 2025. Mr Hashmi maintained the Tribunal had sent notice of the adjournment to an email address he did not regularly check, albeit he did not provide a copy of that email for today’s hearing. As he inadvertently was unaware of the hearing date, he asked that the Tribunal find there had been procedural unfairness and to set aside the FtT’s decision.
7. Ms Newton submitted that if the Tribunal was satisfied the Appellant had been properly served then there was no procedural unfairness. She pointed out that the Appellant had stated at paragraph [4] of his error of law [21] that he had not received the notification of the hearing which contradicted what Mr Hashmi now advanced on his behalf. She pointed out the Appellant had not produced copies of emails to a different email address and he had not served his evidence despite court directions to do so. The Appellant had applied for an adjournment and should have contacted the Tribunal to check the date in any event. She invited the Tribunal to find there was no error in law.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
8. The FtT, prior to proceeding with the appeal, checked whether notices had been properly served. The FtT recorded at paragraph [3] of its decision that the Appellant had not attended the hearing and at paragraph [4] noted the Appellant had also failed to file supporting evidence despite being directed to do so in May and September 2025.
9. After receiving his decision, the Appellant lodged grounds of appeal. In those grounds of appeal (pages 20 to 26 of the composite bundle) the Appellant asked the Tribunal to find there had been an error in law.
10. Significantly, the Appellant stated at paragraph [4]:
“I provide an affidavit of sworn signed in front of an oath to confirm that I have not received any correspondence from the First-tier tribunal regarding an adjourned hearing and I firmly believe that the notice of adjourned hearing i.e. 12 November 2025 might have been sent to some other person’s email address by a mistake as a human error.”
11. The Appellant provided that sworn affidavit [39] in which he stated at paragraph [4] “he had never received any adjournment email from the first-tier tribunal.”
12. The Upper Tribunal gave permission finding, “it was ultimately unfair as it is arguable that the applicant inadvertently did not receive notice of the hearing and that he therefore had no opportunity to put recent evidence with respect to his and his wife’s medical conditions, and other matters, before the Tribunal which arguably may have been material to the outcome of the hearing not withstanding that the First-tier Tribunal rightly takes the previous decision of the First-tier Tribunal as the starting point and finds that the appellant married whilst his immigration status was precarious.”
13. The Appellant has thereafter filed a Rule 25 statement and served evidence which he sought to rely on. Mr Hashmi, who was instructed late in these proceedings, also sought permission to adduce this evidence at today’s hearing.
14. Today, through Mr Hashmi, the Appellant stated he had two email addresses and now claimed the Tribunal had emailed him at the wrong address. His email addresses were [email1]@yahoo.com and [email2]@yahoo.com.
15. Mr Hashmi confirmed the Appellant had received the adjournment email but claimed it had been sent to [email2]@yahoo.com as against [email1]@yahoo.com which was email account he had been using in correspondence. There was evidence he had emailed the Tribunal using this latter email which included:
a. Email sent from him to Tribunal on 29 August 2025 (page 41)
b. Email sent by Tribunal to him on 18 November 2025 enclosing Tribunal decision (page 50)
c. Email sent by Tribunal on 23 November 2025 acknowledging an email he has sent (page 51)
d. Emails sent from Tribunal to him dated 19 January 2026 (page 44 and 45)
e. Emails from him to tribunal on 26 January 2026 (page 40 and 47)
16. We noted and pointed out to the parties that the email address he gave to the Tribunal, when lodging his original appeal, was [email2]@yahoo.com (IAFT-5 on page 446) and that unless he amended that email address, in compliance with Rule 12A(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014 then any documents served by the Tribunal at that email address were validly served.
17. The Appellant, contrary to his sworn affidavit had received the Tribunal’s hearing email albeit he now claimed it was sent to [email2]@yahoo.com which was an email address he did not regularly use. That email was not produced to the Tribunal either today or included in the composite bundle.
18. The central issue identified by UTJ Lindsley, when granting permission, was whether the Appellant had failed to receive notice of the relisted hearing as a consequence of his own inadvertence.
19. The Appellant's grounds and sworn affidavit were unequivocal. He claimed that he had not received any notification of the adjourned hearing and believed the notice may have been sent to another person's email address by mistake. Yet, at the error of law hearing, through his counsel Mr Hashmi, the Appellant accepted that the email had in fact been received but contended that it had been sent to an email account which he did not regularly monitor. That is a materially different case from the one advanced in the grounds and affidavit.
20. Further, the evidence before the Upper Tribunal appears to show:
a. The email address provided in the notice of appeal (IAFT-5) was [email2]@yahoo.com;
b. There was no evidence that the Appellant had formally notified the Tribunal of any change of email address pursuant to rule 12A(2);
c. Documents served to the email address recorded by the Tribunal were validly served;
d. The Appellant produced no copy of the adjournment notification email to demonstrate either its contents or the address to which it was sent; and
e. There was no evidence that the Tribunal had served the notice on an address other than the address held on its records.
21. The burden rests on the Appellant to establish procedural unfairness. If the Tribunal served the notice to the email address supplied by the Appellant and recorded on the appeal file, service was effective whether or not the Appellant regularly checked that account. A failure by a party to monitor an email address that he has provided for service would not render the proceedings unfair. In short, the Appellant had been the author of his own misfortune.
22. Moreover, the FtT expressly considered service before proceeding in the Appellant's absence. The Appellant had already sought an adjournment and knew a hearing was pending. As Ms Newton submitted, it was reasonably open to conclude that a party who had requested an adjournment and received an acknowledgement should have made enquiries if he had heard nothing further about the relisting.
23. Accordingly, unless the Appellant can demonstrate that the Tribunal sent the notice to an address not recorded for service, or otherwise failed to comply with the service provisions, the evidence supports a finding that the hearing was properly notified and that the FtT was entitled to proceed in his absence.
24. We find the Appellant has failed to establish that notice of the relisted hearing was not properly served. The evidence before us demonstrated that the email address held by the Tribunal was the address supplied by the Appellant when lodging his appeal. No evidence was produced to show that this address had been amended or that the notice was sent elsewhere. Alternatively, the Appellant by not producing the email which he now accepts he was sent failed to show it was not sent to [email1]@yahoo.com.
25. The Appellant's case at the error of law hearing, namely that he accepted that he had received the email but had not regularly monitored the email account and so had not read the email, is inconsistent with both his grounds of appeal and sworn affidavit in which he stated that no notice had been received. In those circumstances, we are satisfied that notice was properly served and that the FtT was entitled to proceed in the Appellant's absence.
26. No procedural unfairness has been established, and the decision does not disclose an error of law.

Notice of decision
27. There was no error in law and the FtT’s decision shall stand. The Appellant’s appeal to the Upper Tribunal is dismissed.

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Alis
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
22 July 2026