Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-001359
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/00212/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

6th July 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SHERIDAN

Between

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Appellant
and

TR
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Simpson, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: No attendance

Heard at Field House on 24 June 2026

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the respondent is granted anonymity. No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the respondent, likely to lead members of the public to identify the respondent. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS

1. This is an appeal by the Secretary of State against the decision of Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Lucas promulgated on 30 January 2026.
2. Neither the respondent nor anyone on her behalf attended. I am satisfied that it is in the interest of justice to proceed as (a) it is apparent that the respondent was properly notified of the hearing; (b) she did not attend the hearing in the FTT either; and (c) her lack of engagement is understandable given that she has been granted leave as a refugee and the outcome of this appeal has no relevance to this.
3. The respondent is a citizen of Sri Lanka who brought an appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State dated 13 December 2022 refusing her protection and human rights claim.
4. The respondent lodged an appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision pursuant to section 82 (1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
5. On 31 March 2025 the Secretary of State wrote to the respondent, stating:
You asked to be treated as a dependant on the asylum application of [ ]. Their asylum application has been carefully considered and this letter is to advise you of the outcome of that decision. It has been decided that [ ] qualifies for asylum. It has also been decided that as their dependant, you have also been recognised as a refugee and granted leave until 30 March 2030.
6. In January 2026 the respondent’s appeal came before Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Lucas. The respondent did not attend the hearing. In a very brief decision, the judge allowed the appeal on the basis of what is said in the letter of 31 March 2025.
7. The Secretary of State argues that the judge could not allow the appeal because it had been abandoned as of 31 March 2025 by operation of section 104(4A) the 2002 Act.
8. Sections 104(4A) and (4B) of the 2002 Act provide:
(4A) An appeal under section 82(1) brought by a person while he is in the United Kingdom shall be treated as abandoned if the appellant is granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom subject to subsection (4B).
(4B) Subsection (4A) shall not apply to an appeal in so far as it is brought on a ground specified in section 84(1)(a) or (b) or 84(3) (asylum or humanitarian protection)] where the appellant gives notice, in accordance with Tribunal Procedure Rules, that he wishes to pursue the appeal in so far as it is brought on that ground.
9. The headnote to MSU (S.104(4b) notices) Bangladesh [2019] UKUT 412 (IAC) states:
Where s.104(4A) applies to an appeal, neither the First-tier Tribunal nor the Upper Tribunal has any jurisdiction unless and until a notice is given in accordance with s.104(4B).
10. No notice has been given in accordance with s.104(4B). Accordingly, the FTT did not have jurisdiction to decide the appeal.
11. I therefore set aside the FTT decision because it was made without jurisdiction.
12. I remake the decision and dismiss the respondent’s appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision to refuse her protection and human rights claim. This is because, in accordance with s.104(4A) of the 2002 Act, the appeal must be treated as abandoned as the appellant was granted leave on 31 March 2025.

Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside. I remake the decision and dismiss the appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision as the appeal has been abandoned and the Upper Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to decide the appeal.

D Sheridan

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

24.6.2026