Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-001142
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/68603/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
12th August 2026

Before

DEPUTY CHAMBER PRESIDENT PLIMMER

Between

IH
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Winter, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr Mullen, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Melville Street, Edinburgh, on 12 August 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
1. The appellant is a citizen of Iraq. He has appealed against a First-tier Tribunal (‘FTT’) decision dated 29 December 2025, dismissing his appeal on asylum grounds.
2. No anonymity order was made by the FTT. In my view the requirements under the Refugee Convention in this particular case outweigh the demands of open justice, and I grant an anonymity order.
3. The appellant has a lengthy immigration history having arrived in the United Kingdom (‘UK’) as far back as 2016. I need not rehearse that history because I am satisfied that the FTT has made an error of law such that the decision must be set aside and remitted.
4. The FTT noted the previous adverse findings of fact made in a 2017 FTT decision, and considered the appellant’s updated explanations and evidence in relation to the main credibility issues arising in the appeal. However, as ground 3 contends, the FTT made no reference whatsoever to the very detailed report prepared by a Clinical Psychologist Ms Stewart, dated 22 August 2025. This diagnosed the appellant as having severe anxiety, severe depressive symptoms and PTSD, and was accompanied by detailed reasoning. The report also explained the impact these conditions might have upon the appellant’s evidence and memory. This was clearly an important report which demanded the attention of the FTT, both in relation to the appellant’s vulnerability and the approach to the evidence he provided.
5. In comprehensive written submissions dated 28 November 2025, the appellant’s representatives drew the FTT’s attention to the psychological report at [19d, 18 and 19] and raised the approach to that report as an issue to be resolved by the FTT.
6. As noted by the FTT, there are clearly prima facie significant credibility concerns in the appellant’s evidence. However as Mr Mullen accepted, the FTT could not lawfully reach conclusions on credibility in the absence of consideration of the principal issues raised in the psychologist’s report. He therefore accepted that the FTT made a material error of law in failing to address it. I agree.
7. I have considered the guidance in AEB v SSHD [2022] EWCA Civ 1512; [2023] 4 WLR 12, Begum (remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 46 (IAC); [2023] Imm AR 558 and Majera v SSHD [2025] EWCA Civ 1597. Given the extensive findings of fact and the scope of the issues which remain for decision, it is appropriate to remit this appeal to the FTT to be heard by a judge other than FTTJ Gillepsie. Both parties agrees agreed with this course.
8. It would be helpful if early consideration could be given to whether the appellant should be treated as a vulnerable witness in the light of the psychologist’s report.
Decision
9. The decision of the FTT contains an error of law and is set aside. The decision is remitted to the FTT, where it shall be remade.

DCP Plimmer
Deputy Chamber President Plimmer

12 August 2026