Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-001271
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/58474/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Directions Issued:

On 15th of May 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE JACKSON

Between

LP
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

DIRECTIONS

1. The Appellant appeals with permission against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Shiner promulgated on 5 December 2025, dismissing his appeal against the Respondent’s decision to refuse his protection and human rights claim. There were three grounds of appeal and permission to appeal was granted on all grounds. The first related to the failure of the First-tier Tribunal to assess or take into account the Appellant’s brother’s evidence, and failure to address their relationship in the context of Article 8. The second related to the First-tier Tribunal’s assessment of the country expert report, considered only after the assessment of the Appellant’s credibility. The third related to the First-tier Tribunal’s assessment of the medical evidence and psychologists report in particular, attaching little weight to the latter due to the reliance on self-reporting.

2. In a rule 24 response dated 30 March 2026, the Respondent stated that she did not oppose the application for permission in line with the grant of permission to appeal and invited the Upper Tribunal to consider remittal of the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal ‘in light of the acceptance of a material error of law’.

3. The Respondent’s position does not expressly identify which ground of appeal is accepted as a material error or law, but given the general reference to the grant of permission on all grounds, I read it as acceptance of material errors of law on all grounds such that the decision should be set aside in its entirety and the appeal heard afresh.

4. In all of the circumstances, it is my preliminary view that the First-tier Tribunal erred in law for the reasons set out in the grounds of appeal and for the reasons set out in the grant of permission to appeal. In particular, the decision (i) fails to refer at all to the Appellant’s brothers’ evidence and fails entirely to consider any relationship between them for the purposes of Article 8 (as to whether family life exists for these purposes or in any event as part of the Appellant’s private life); (ii) attaches little weight to the psychologist report for two main reasons, one of which that it was based on self-reporting when in fact it was expressly based on assessment and wider matters, to which I would add that the credibility of the Appellant’s account was assessed initially without reference to the medical evidence or whether this impacted on his credibility, contrary to the guidance on vulnerable witnesses; and (iii) contrary to the guidance on vulnerable witnesses, considers the expert country evidence only after adverse credibility findings were made as opposed to considering expressly whether the Appellant’s account is consistent with the same to aid in assessment of his credibility.

5. It is further my preliminary view that in these circumstances the decision of the First-tier Tribunal must be set aside and a de novo hearing listed for the appeal to be determined afresh by a different Judge. The nature of the grounds of appeal and errors of law are such that all aspects of the decision are infected and no findings of fact can be preserved. In these circumstances, I agree with the Respondent’s suggestion that this appeal should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing.

6. As such, the Upper Tribunal is minded to find a material error of law in the decision of the First-tier Tribunal, set it aside and remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing before any Judge except Judge Shiner.

Directions

Any party who is opposed to this course of action is directed to inform the Tribunal in writing (giving reasons), not later than 14 days after the date on which these directions are sent by the Upper Tribunal.

Following that period, if there is no reasoned objection to this approach, these directions will stand as the decision in UI-2026-001271 to find an error of law; set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal and remit the appeal for a de novo hearing in the First-tier Tribunal.

If there is a reasoned objection to this approach, the appeal will be listed for error of law hearing.

G Jackson

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

13th April 2026