UI-2026-000463

• Status of case: Unreported
• Hearing date: 23 Mar 2026
• Promulgation date: 25 Mar 2026
• Publication date: 10 Apr 2026
• Last updated on: 10 Apr 2026

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-000463
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/57140/2023
LP/06647/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 25th March 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CANAVAN

Between

M M A
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

­Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, is granted anonymity because the decision involves a protection claim. 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 appealed the respondent’s decision to refuse a protection and human rights claim. First-tier Tribunal Judge Abebrese (‘the judge’) dismissed the appeal in a decision sent on 01 October 2024.
2. The appellant applied for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal in an application sent on 04 November 2024. It is unclear why it took so long for the First-tier Tribunal to consider the application. The First-tier Tribunal extended time to admit the application and granted permission to appeal in an order sent on 03 February 2026.
3. The respondent filed a rule 24 response on 05 March 2026 stating that she did not oppose the appeal to the Upper Tribunal. In correspondence from both parties it is said that they are agreed that the First-tier Tribunal decision involved the making of an error of law and that the decision will need to be remade in its entirety. The parties agree that the matter can be determined without a hearing. Although the respondent acknowledges that the appeal could be remade in the Upper Tribunal, which is likely to be able to determine the appeal much sooner than the First-tier Tribunal, there is some level of agreement that the wholesale nature of the remaking required makes it appropriate for the case to be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal.
4. It is still a matter for the Upper Tribunal to decide whether the First-tier Tribunal decision involved the making of an error of law. Having reviewed the decision, and the submissions made by both parties, I accept that the judge failed to take into account relevant evidence when assessing the credibility of the appellant’s account and failed to give clear or adequate reasons for material findings. It is not necessary to give detailed reasons for this decision when the parties are in agreement: see rule 40(3)(a) The Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008.
5. It is unfortunate that these errors mean that the appeal will need to be heard afresh. While acknowledging that remittal will add to its busy workload, the nature and extent of the fact finding required is such that it is appropriate to remit the case for a fresh hearing in the First-tier Tribunal: see Begum (remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 00046 (IAC).
Notice of Decision
The First-tier Tribunal decision involved the making of a material error of law
The case is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh hearing


M. Canavan
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

23 March 2026