UI-2026-000670 & Ors.

  • 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-2026-000670, UI-2026-000672
UI-2026-000674, UI-2026-000675
EA/00260/2025, EA/00261/2025
EA/00263/2025, EA/00264/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 13th of May 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LANE

Between

MUNAZZA ZAFAR (1); ANAM VIRK (2); HAMZA VIRK (3); RAIMA VIRK (4)
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

DETERMINED WITHOUT A HEARING


DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellants’ appeals against a decision of the Secretary of State were dismissed by the First-tier Tribunal without a hearing and by way of a consideration of the papers only.
2. The respondent has filed and served a Rule 24 notice which reads at [3-5] as follows:
Having considered the Grounds of Appeal and the grant of permission dated 11/02/2026, the Secretary of State concedes that the FTT’s decision involved the making of a material error of law. The determination does not demonstrate that the FTTJ considered whether it was fair and appropriate, under Rule 25(1), to proceed with the appeal on papers.
The Respondent accepts that the case of SSGA (Disposal without considering merits; R25) Iraq [2023] UKUT 00012 (IAC) confirmed that the power to determine an appeal without a hearing requires the Tribunal to actively consider and address the question of fairness (Headnote 4). A failure to do so constitutes an error of law. In the present case, while the Judge recorded that neither party attended or was represented at [11], the determination contains no reasoning showing that the mandatory fairness assessment was undertaken, notwithstanding the existence of disputed factual issues. The SSHD therefore accepts that the procedural requirement under Rule 25 was not adopted and accepts the material error of law.
The SSHD invites the UT to find set aside the decision of the FTT and remit the appeal to the FTT for a fresh hearing before a different Judge. It must be emphasized that this concession is strictly limited to the procedural error identified, and the SSHD reserves her position on the substantive merits of the appeal.
3. Having received the Rule 24 notice, I directed that I would determine the appeal as indicated by the respondent if I did not receive any indication in writing to the contrary from either party. No indication has been received. Accordingly, I allow the appeal and return it to the First-tier Tribunal for that Tribunal to remake the decision.
Notice of Decision
The appeals are allowed. The appeals are returned to the First-tier Tribunal for that Tribunal to remake the decision.


C. N. Lane

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber


Dated: 5 May 2026