UI-2026-000943

  • 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-2026-000943
First-tier Tribunal No: HU/50077/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 6th of May 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BULPITT

Between

SM
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

ENTRY CLEARANCE OFFICER
Respondent

Order Regarding Anonymity

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
1. An anonymity order was made in the First-tier Tribunal because this appeal relates to a child. In accordance with the Presidential Guidance, the names of children, whether appellants of the children of appellants, will not normally be disclosed in proceedings in the Upper Tribunal unless there are good reasons in the interests of justice to do so. There is no suggestion that such good reasons exist in this case and therefore I maintain the anonymity order that was made.
2. Permission to appeal against the First-tier Tribunal Judge’s (FTTJ) decision in this matter was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Grey on the basis that it was arguable that the FTTJ failed to adequately consider all the evidence submitted about the appellant’s care or alternatively failed to adequately explain why that evidence was outweighed. Following the grant of permission the respondent has filed a response in accordance with rule 24 of the Tribunal’s Procedure Rules in which she concedes that the decision of the FTTJ involved the error of law described in the grant of permission and that the decision should be set aside.
3. In view of this concession I am satisfied that this appeal can be resolved without a hearing in accordance with rule 34(1) of the Tribunal’s Procedure Rules. I find that the decision of the FTTJ contained an error of law such that it must be set aside and the appeal be considered afresh in the First-tier Tribunal. The decision of the FTTJ did not adequately explain why the applicant lost her appeal.

Notice of Decision
The decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Parkes contained an error of law and is set aside.
The appeal is remitted for a fresh hearing in the First-tier Tribunal before a different Judge.


Luke Bulpitt

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

30 April 2026