UI-2026-000540

  • Case title:  
  • Appellant name:
  • Status of case: Unreported
  • Hearing date:
  • Promulgation date:
  • Publication date:
  • Last updated on:
  • Country:
  • Judges:

The decision



IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-000540
First-tier Tribunal No: HU/59578/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 10th of June 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE O’BRIEN

Between

BAO THANG DUONG
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

ENTRY CLEARANCE OFFICER
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr A Slatter of Counsel, instructed on a direct access basis
For the Respondent: Mr N Wain, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 29 May 2026

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant appeals against the decision of a Judge of the First-tier Tribunal (‘the judge’) dated 18 October 2025 dismissing his appeal against the respondent’s decision to refuse his human rights claim.
2. Permission to appeal was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Owens on all grounds in a decision dated 25 March 2026. Those grounds assert in short that the judge: gave inadequate reasons for accepting documentary evidence of the appellant’s father’s contact with his school but finding that the father did not remain in contact with the school; unfairly held against the appellant his sponsor’s inability to produce messages with his son’s teacher when the issue had not been taken by the respondent; and made adverse credibility findings on a factually erroneous basis (an incorrect translation, a corrected version of which had been uploaded before the hearing).
3. In her rule 24 response, the respondent accepted that the first ground (only) disclosed an error of law, but that it was immaterial given the other, safe adverse findings. However, Mr Wain confirmed at the outset of the hearing that the remaining grounds were conceded and that, given the admitted unfairness, the appeal should be remitted to be reheard afresh.
4. I find this to be a well-made concession. Whilst it would have been open to the judge to reject the sponsor’s claim to have remained in contact with his son’s school, he failed adequately to explain why he had done so. It was in any event, unfair to make adverse credibility findings on a factually erroneous basis.
5. In the circumstances, I agreed that the appropriate disposal was to remit the appeal to be heard afresh.

Notice of Decision
1. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error of law and is set aside.
2. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard by another judge with no findings preserved.



Sean O’Brien

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber


29 May 2026