Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-001231, UI-2026-001232
UI-2026-001233, UI-2026-001234
UI-2026-001228, UI-2026-001235

First-tier Tribunal No:
HU/55627/2024, HU/55629/2024
HU/55632/2024, HU/55633/2024
HU/55634/2024, HU/55635/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 12th of June 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LODATO

Between

HAJ, RAW, RAW, KAW, MAW & OAW
(ANONYMITY ORDERED)
Appellants
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms Mair, counsel
For the Respondent: Ms Newton, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Manchester Civil Justice Centre on 19 May 2026

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellants and sponsor are granted anonymity.

No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the appellants and sponsor, likely to lead members of the public to identify them. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
Introduction and Background
1. I have decided to maintain the anonymity order originally made in these proceedings by the First-tier Tribunal (‘FtT’) because the underlying claims are brought by several minor children. The sponsor was also a child when the applications were made. In reaching this decision, I am mindful of the fundamental principle of open justice, but I am satisfied that the rights of these children to privacy and their best interests outweigh the rights of the public to know of their identities, and the identities of the adult appellants because this information would tend to identify the minor children.
2. The appellant appeals with permission against the decision, dated 9 January 2026, of a judge of the FtT (‘the judge’) to dismiss the appeal on human rights grounds.
3. The appeal arose in the context of the Syrian appellants’ applications for entry clearance to join their sponsoring family member in the UK. The sponsor is a recognised refugee and was a child when the applications were made.
Appeal to the Upper Tribunal
4. The appellant applied for permission to appeal in reliance on 2 grounds of appeal relating to suggested flaws in the judge’s approach to the best interests of the minor appellants and the overall proportionality assessment. In a decision dated 13 March 2026, an FtT judge granted permission for both grounds to be argued.
5. In advance of the hearing, the tribunal was notified that RAW (UI-2026-001232 - HU/55629/2024) wished to withdraw his appeal because he was no longer living with the other appellants and did not wish to join his sponsoring brother in the UK.
6. At the error of law hearing, Ms Newton conceded that the decision involved a material error of law. I indicated that I would be allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the First-tier Tribunal to be decided afresh without preserving any findings of fact. These are my reasons.
Discussion
7. I am satisfied that the respondent’s concession of the appeal is well-founded. In conceding the appeal, Ms Newton shared my primary concern that the judge had not asked herself a fundamental question going to the best interests of the sponsor who was a child when the applications were made. The appellants are the sponsor’s mother and siblings and the sponsor is a refugee who cannot return to Syria to share family life with them there. Against that backdrop it was essential for the judge to ask herself whether it would be in the sponsoring child’s best interests for him to remain living in the UK without his immediate family being permitted to join him. The judge addressed the sponsor’s best interests as a child at [26] but did not grapple with the obvious point as to whether it would be in his best interests to remain separated from his immediate family unit. This was a primary factor which might have a significant bearing on the overall balance to be performed under Article 8. There are factors which plainly weigh in favour of the public interest in maintaining the refusal decision in light of IA & Others v SSHD [2025] EWCA Civ 1516, but the scales must be properly weighted before a lawful balancing exercise can be safely performed. A primary factor touching on the best interests of a relevant child in the UK was not considered. Bearing in mind the need for such a proportionality balancing exercise to focus on the Article 8 rights of the sponsor in the UK, the judge’s assessment of the Article 8 claims is materially and lawfully in error.
Disposal
8. The parties were agreed that the appropriate disposal was to remit the appeal to the FtT without preserving any findings of fact. I agree that this is procedurally desirable given the need for a full fact-finding exercise which the FtT is best placed to undertake.
9. I treat RAW’s appeal (UI-2026-001232) as withdrawn under rule 17 of the Tribunal Procedure Rules.
Notice of Decision
I am satisfied that the decision of the judge involved a material error of law. I set aside the decision without preserving any findings of fact. The appeals (save for UI-2026-001232) are to be remitted to the FtT to be decided de novo by a different judge.
I treat RAW’s appeal (UI-2026-001232) as withdrawn under rule 17 of the Tribunal Procedure Rules.

P Lodato

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

2 June 2026