Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2026-000758
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/70763/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 21st April 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE O’CALLAGHAN

Between

WHK (AFGHANISTAN)
(Anonymity Order Made)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Rule 34 Decision at Field House on 13 April 2026

DECISION AND REASONS
Introduction
1. This is an appeal by the appellant against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing his international protection and human rights appeals. The panel’s decision was sent to the parties on 28 November 2025.
2. First-tier Tribunal Judge Mulready granted permission to appeal on grounds 1 to 5, but not 6, by a decision sent to the parties on 17 February 2026. Ground 6 advanced a challenge directed towards the application of the two-tier test under section 32 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.
3. The respondent filed a Rule 24 response, dated 25 February 2026. She concedes the appeal in the Upper Tribunal and requests that this matter be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a hearing de novo.
4. By her response, the respondent observes, inter alia:
“The respondent concedes the appeal. It is accepted that the FTTJ materially erred when he failed to give reasons why he made findings that the Taliban would or would not have conducted themselves in a certain way. He failed to outline what evidential foundation was used to make the finding, found utilising the FTTJs own assumptions.
The findings amount to a speculative approach to then make credibility findings which arguably amount to an error of law.”
Rule 34 Decision
5. In considering whether to proceed under rule 34 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 I am mindful as to the circumstances when an oral hearing is to be held in order to comply with the common law duty of fairness and as to when a decision may appropriately be made consequent to a paper consideration: Osborn v The Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61; [2014] AC 1115 and JCWI v President of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) [2020] EWHC 3103 (Admin), at paragraphs 6.1 - 6.14.
6. In the circumstances arising in this appeal, particularly the position adopted by the respondent, and being mindful of the importance of these proceedings to the appellant, the expense to the parties of attending an oral hearing and the overriding objective that the Upper Tribunal deal with cases fairly and justly, I am satisfied that it is just and appropriate to proceed under rule 34.
Discussion
7. Having carefully considered the papers in this matter, I agree with the respondent as to the panel’s decision being materially erroneous in law.
8. The panel’s approach to credibility adopted, on occasion, the approach of engaging in speculation. Whilst other findings were reasonably open to the panel, I conclude that the inclusion of speculation into the holistic assessment adversely infected the conclusion reached to credibility.
9. The panel further erred in placing weight on the appellant’s failure to mention in his screening interview core elements of events later relied upon. Applicants seeking international protection are typically informed at screening interviews that they will be asked for a brief outline of why they are claiming asylum and that they will be asked for full details of their experiences and fears at a subsequent interview. Screening interviews are not the place to explore the international protection claim in detail. I observe the long-standing guidance in the reported decision of YL (Rely on SEF) China [2004] UKIAT 00145 at paragraph 19.
10. The only appropriate course is to set aside the decision in its entirety.
11. I note Begum (Remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 0046 (IAC). Consequent to the appeal being considered de novo and the likely extent of documentary evidence and examination of the appellant at the remaking hearing, it is appropriate that this matter be remade by the First-tier Tribunal.
Notice of Decision
12. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal sent to the parties on 28 November 2025 is set aside for material error of law, with no preserved findings of fact.
13. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal sitting in Bradford.
14. The anonymity direction made by the First-tier Tribunal is reaffirmed.

D O’Callaghan
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
13 April 2026