Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-000643
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/01226/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 24th June 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PAUL LEWIS

Between

EK
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: In person
For the Respondent: Ms. Keerthy, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 10 June 2026

Order Regarding Anonymity

Anonymity was ordered by the First-tier Tribunal. No application to discharge was made. It remains in force.

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

Background
1. The appellant, a citizen of Nepal, appeals with permission against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal Judge (the ‘Judge’) promulgated on 9th December 2025.
The Hearing
2. The appellant was represented at the First-tier Tribunal and during the process of applying for permission to appeal. Prior to this hearing, the appellant’s solicitors made a written application to adjourn the hearing on the ground that the appellant could not afford representation by counsel at this hearing. The application was refused on 4 June 2026. The appellant appeared in person and made submissions through an interpreter in Nepali.
Grounds of appeal
3. There are two grounds of appeal:
(i) when considering the appellant’s claim under Article 8 ECHR, the Judge did not consider relevant medical evidence when assessing whether there were very significant obstacles to integration and in assessing the (unduly harsh) consequences which might arise from the appellant’s removal from the UK.
(ii) The judge did not properly consider the appellant’s subjective fear of persecution .
4. The appeal was opposed by the respondent for the reasons set out in their Rule 24 response and subsequent oral submissions and to which I return below.
Discussion
Ground one
5. The appellant’s health is the core issue in this appeal. The appellant had breast cancer. She was successfully treated by surgery and radiotherapy. She gave oral evidence before the judge that she was in remission, undergoes annual mammograms and takes medication (Tamoxifen) to reduce the risk of recurrence. The parties agreed that Tamoxifen is available in Nepal.
6. Before the Judge, it was submitted that the appellant may struggle to afford Tamoxifen in Nepal. The appellant relied on a Journal article dated December 2019 on the availability, price and affordability of medicines in Nepal. Whilst the price of several medicines is set out at Tables 1, 2 and 3, there is no information in the report about the price of the Tamoxifen.
7. Further medical evidence as to the appellant’s health was set out in four pages of correspondence which did not directly or indirectly refer to the effect on the appellant if her medication was stopped or interrupted.
8. In assessing the appellant’s claim under article 3, ECHR at [55] the judge found:
‘ if the appellant does not receive Tamoxifen there will be an increased risk of her cancer returning.’
Although the judge’s findings are limited; they cannot properly be criticised for lacking specificity. There was no proper evidential basis for the judge to go further than he did as to the nature of the risk given the very limited medical evidence in this case.
9. Against that background and findings, it is now submitted that when assessing the appellant’s Article 8 claim and the obstacles to her return to Nepal, the judge did not directly address the appellant’s health, specifically the judge does not revisit the impact on the appellant if she were not able to access Tamoxifen reliably in Nepal.
10. In her oral submissions before me on this ground the appellant told me about her medical history, to the point where she bordered on giving evidence. She did not materially expand on the written grounds prepared on her behalf.
11. The respondent submits that the Judge’s findings regarding the potential impact on the Appellant by a lack of access to Tamoxifen under the Article 3 assessment were equally relevant to any assessment under Article 8.
12. The judge did not err. In determining the appellant’s Article 3 claim, the judge found the submissions made on behalf of the appellant were not supported by the evidence. The Judge could not reach any more detailed conclusions about the impact of reduced access to medication without impermissibly speculating.
Ground two
13. It is submitted that the appellant’s subjective fear of persecution on return was not properly addressed when assessing her Article 8 claim. In her limited oral submissions on this ground the appellant adopted the written grounds prepared for and said that she was afraid to return to Nepal.
14. At [57] to [73] the Judge made detailed findings and evaluations of the appellant’s Article 8 claim. These included specific findings regarding reintegration at [65] to [67]. At [47] the judge records that it was not argued that the appellant would become politically active in Nepal again, nor that she would refrain from doing so through fear of persecution.
15. The Judge’s findings must be read as a whole. The judge rejected the appellant’s protection claim [44]. It was unnecessary for the Judge to repeat findings.
16. This ground amounts to a disagreement with the findings of the judge and does not disclose and error of law.

Notice of Decision
The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve a material error of law. The decision of 9th December 2025 stands. The appeal is dismissed.

Paul Lewis

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

19th June 2026