Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-001173
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/70665/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

30th September 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE Ó CEALLAIGH KC

Between

SS
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Saleem, Malik and Malik Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr Walker, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 25 September 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 is a national of Afghanistan who seeks protection in the United Kingdom. The appellant’s application was refused by the respondent in a decision dated 11 September 2024. The appellant’s appeal came before First-tier Tribunal Judge Plowright who dismissed it in a determination promulgated on 22 December 2025. The appellant seeks to appeal that dismissal.

2. Permission to appeal was refused by FTTJ Karbani on 4 March 2026. The appellant renewed his application. Permission to appeal was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Grey on 14 May 2026.

3. The Secretary of State accepted before me that the determination of FTTJ Plowright contained a material error of law such that it should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal and reheard de novo. I agree for the reasons below.

Grounds

4. The appellant relies on a single ground of appeal. He argues that the FTT erred by failing to make findings on the question of his father’s work for an NGO, when this was a central part of his case.

5. Upper Tribunal Judge Grey granting permission considered that it was arguable that the FTTJ should have made an express finding in respect of the role of the appellant’s father. She did however have reservations about the materiality of any error given the findings on credibility.

6. The respondent filed and served a Rule 24 response dated 21 August 2026 defending the appeal. However, this response appears to address the grounds of appeal in respect of which FTTJ Karbani had previously refused permission to appeal. Mr Walker accepted that this was the case and that accordingly it was not of assistance before me.

Decision and reasons

7. At the outset of the hearing the parties indicated that they had discussed the matter and come to an agreement. Mr Walker accepted that the failure of the FTTJ to consider and/or make any findings on the appellant’s father’s involvement with an NGO amounted to an error of law, and that the error was material. It was his view that the failure to consider this aspect of the appellant’s case infected the credibility findings in respect of what was considered, and the appeal should be remitted to be heard again de novo.

8. I agree. As UTJ Grey pointed out granting permission, being associated through his father with a foreign NGO was potentially a matter that would have placed the appellant at risk on return. It was a central part of the appellant’s case that, in addition to his claim to have himself been involved in the education of girls, his father was associated with a government-affiliated mosque disapproved of by the Taliban and a foreign NGO. These matters might well have placed the appellant at risk irrespective of the findings on the credibility of the rest of his account. However, they were not considered anywhere in the determination.

9. Nor, as Mr Walker accepted, can the FTTJ’s doubts about the manner of the appellant’s leaving Afghanistan simply be read across to this aspect of his case. On the contrary, it is impossible to be confident in the findings on the credibility of the case in the round when a key part of that case has been left unaddressed and apparently unconsidered.

10. It follows that the decision of the FTTJ contained a material error of law and the matter must be reheard.

Notice of Decision

The decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Plowright of 22 December 2025 did contain a material error of law. It is set aside. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for rehearing de novo.

Greg Ó Ceallaigh KC

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

25 September 2026