Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-000955
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/53964/2024
LP/03862/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

13th May 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KAMARA

Between

MT
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr S Karim, counsel instructed by Liberty Legal Solicitors LLP
For the Respondent: Ms A Everett, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 5 May 2026

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
Introduction
1. The appellant has been granted permission to appeal the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing his protection appeal following a hearing which took place on 21 July 2025.
2. The date of the judge’s decision dismissing the appeal was 1 December 2025.
3. Permission to appeal was granted by a First-tier Tribunal Judge on 2 March 2026.
Anonymity
4. I have continued the anonymity order made by the First-Tier Tribunal. I have considered the public interest in open justice but conclude that it is outweighed by the importance of facilitating the discharge of the United Kingdom’s obligations to those claiming international protection because of the need for confidentiality.
Factual Background
5. The appellant is a national of Bangladesh now aged around thirty years old. He arrived in the United Kingdom for the purpose of studies on 1 February 2022. Shortly before his visa was due to expire in November 2022, the appellant applied for asylum. His protection claim was based on his membership and activities on behalf of the Islami Chatra Shibir party, described as the student wing of the Bangladesh Jamaat – e- Islami party. The appellant states that he was detained and tortured by the police in 2018. In 2021, a false case was filed against him which led him to leave Bangladesh in 2022. Since arriving in the United Kingdom the appellant has joined an organisation called Peace for Bangladesh.
6. By way of a decision dated 6 February 2024, the respondent refused the appellant’s protection and human rights claims. Other than his identity, no other aspect of the claim was accepted owing to concerns with the credibility of the appellant’s claims.
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal
7. Following the hearing before the First-tier Tribunal, the judge accepted the appellant’s claimed political activity in Bangladesh and that a case was filed against him at the behest of the Awami League in 2021, but concluded that the appellant would no longer be at risk owing to the change of regime in Bangladesh.
The appeal to the Upper Tribunal
8. The grounds of appeal can be summarised as follows:

i. Failure to make findings and/or apply paragraph 339K of the Immigration Rules
ii. Failure to give reasons
iii. Failure to consider risk from Jamaat-e-Islami in line with background evidence
iv. Failure to consider updated background evidence
v. Failure to undertake sufficient assessment of very significant obstacles to reintegration
9. Permission to appeal was granted on the basis sought, with the judge granting permission making the following remarks.
In my judgement, Grounds 1, 2 and 3 are arguable. It is arguable that the Judge’s determination lacks findings on material parts of the appellant’s claim. It is also arguable that the Judge has only made findings on the risk to the appellant from the Awami League and has failed to make findings on the threats or risk to the appellant from Jamaat e-Islami. Grounds 4 and 5 are less persuasive.
10. The respondent filed a Rule 24 response dated 10 March 2026, in which, although it was stated the appeal was opposed, the following comments were made.
3 The Respondent submits that Grounds 1-3 are arguable. The Judge’s determination failed to make findings in key aspects of the appellant’s claim and failed to make findings on the threats or risk to the appellant from Jamaat e-Islami. Other grounds are opposed. It is submitted that, with respect to Grounds 4-5, the FTTJ considered relevant background evidence [22, 24] and undertook sufficient assessment of very significant obstacles to reintegration [28].
4 The Respondent does not oppose Grounds 1-3.
5 The Respondent requests an oral hearing.
The error of law hearing
11. The matter comes before the Upper Tribunal to determine whether the decision contains an error of law and, if it is so concluded, to either re-make the decision or remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal to do so. A bundle was submitted by the appellant containing, inter alia, the core documents in the appeal, including the appellant’s and respondent’s bundles before the First-tier Tribunal.
12. The hearing was attended by representatives for both parties as above. Ms Everett drew my attention to the notice of Resident Judge Froom dated 9 February 2026, in which he proposed to set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision under Rule 35 Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014, subject to representations from the parties. Both parties were in agreement that no representations had been sent in relation to this notice.
13. Given the views of the parties, the judge granting permission as well as those of Judge Froom, which accorded with my own views, I was prepared to accept that there were material errors of law in the decision of the First-tier Tribunal, the decision ought to be set aside and remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing.
Discussion
14. In his notice dated 9 February 2026, Judge Froom provided the following reasons for proposing that the decision be set aside:
I consider that the First-tier Tribunal’s Decision and Reasons, read together with the grounds of appeal, discloses a material error of law. The Judge has failed to make findings on material parts of the appellant’s claim such as whether he was detained and tortured by police in the past. This finding might affect a finding on future treatment notwithstanding the change in regime. Nor has the Judge given reasons for finding that the case against the appellant would not be acted on. The Judge has failed to make findings on the threats or risk to the appellant from Jamaat e-Islami.
15. The errors in this case are abundantly clear and a matter of agreement and there is no need to add anything further.
Notice of Decision
The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did involve the making of an error on a point of law.
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside.
The appeal is remitted, de novo, to the First-tier Tribunal to be reheard by a different judge.

T Kamara

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

5 May 2026