UI-2026-000990

  • 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-2026-000990
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/60403/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 11 May 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SILLS

Between

QS
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Afzal
For the Respondent: Ms Keerthy

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] (and/or any member of his family, expert, witness or other person the Tribunal considers should not be identified) 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 (and/or other person). Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.


DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant appeals against the FTT Decision dated 25 November 2025 dismissing the appeal on all grounds.
2. At the hearing before me, Ms Keerthy conceded that the FTT Decision contained errors of law as identified in the permission grounds 1, 2, and 4. She conceded that no factual findings could be preserved and so the matter should me remitted to the FTT for a fresh hearing by a different judge.
3. In relation to ground 1, Ms Keerthy accepted that the FFT Judge had misapplied and impermissibly elevated the test for future risk, well-founded fear, in stating at para 62 that ‘I disagree with the expert’s opinion that the appellant’s marriage to her Pashtoon husband would necessarily result in their being an honour killing.’ She further highlighted that this misconstrues the expert’s opinion, which at para 46 of the report stated that if the account were true, the Appellant would be at ‘significant risk’ on return. In relation to ground 2, Ms Keerthy accepted that the FTT Judge had impermissibly relied on their own cultural assumptions as identified in the grant of permission. This is at paras 60-61 in particular. Ms Keerthy accepted that as a result of these flaws, the FTT Judge’s factual findings were unsustainable. As to ground 4, Ms Keerthy also accept that the FTT Judge did not consider sufficiency of protection and whether the Appellant could safely internally relocate. For all these reasons Ms Keerthy conceded that the Judge’s finding of fact were flawed, the decision contained material errors of law, that the decision should be set aside with no findings preserved, and remitted to the FTT for a fresh hearing.
4. In view of these concessions, I find that the FTT Decision does contain material errors of law as conceded. I therefore set aside the FTT Decision. In view of the concessions made, I set aside the FTT Decision in its entirety with no findings preserved. In view of the extent of the factual findings required, I remit the matter to be heard by the FTT afresh by a different judge. Directions for the case management of the appeal to a further final hearing should be issued by the FTT.
Notice of Decision
The decision of the FTT is set aside.
The appeal is remitted to the FTT to be heard by a different judge. No findings of fact are preserved.


Judge Sills

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
5 May 2026