Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM
CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-001497

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/64725/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 24th of April 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MANDALIA

Between

SH
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Appellant
and

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Determined on the Papers Under Rule 34
Decision and Reasons

Anonymity
1. This appeal concerns a claim for international protection. 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.”
Introduction
2. The appellant is a national of Bangladesh. His appeal against the decision of the respondent to refuse his protection claim was dismissed by First-tier Tribunal (“FtT”) Judge Monson (“the judge”) for reasons set out in a decision dated 27 November 2025.
3. The appellant did not attend the hearing before the FtT. The judge recorded in the decision that the appellant had telephoned to say that he was too ill to attend, and that he was requesting an adjournment. The judge nevertheless considered the background to that application, and said that having weighed up the competing considerations, it was in the interest of justice to proceed with the hearing in the appellant’s absence pursuant to Rule 28 of the Tribunal Procedure Rules 2014.
4. The appellant claims the judge erroneously proceeded to determine the appeal in the absence of the appellant, who was unable to participate in proceedings due to illness. The appellant had sent an email to the Tribunal claiming that he had been coughing up blood while coughing, and he had been advised by his GP that he should not go to public places pending further tests for TB. He had provided the Tribunal with his TB test document and a medical sick note.
5. Permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal was granted by First-tier Tribunal Judge Hickey on 18 March 2026. Jude Hickey said:
“4. … It would appear the judge only had sight of the sick note as this was the only document on the portal and decided to proceed in the appellant’s absence.
5. There is an arguable error of law. Putting aside the email, the sick note asserted that the appellant had a fever and cough. It is arguable that the judge failed to give proper consideration to the overriding objective regarding seeking to ensure parties can participate and regarding fairness.”
The Error of Law
6. As the respondent concedes the error of law, I can deal with the error of law in short form.
7. The respondent has filed a Rule 24 response dated 9 April 2026. The respondent does not oppose the appeal and concedes the judge should have adjourned the hearing of the appeal due to the appellant’s ill health. The respondent accepts the appellant had uploaded two supporting documents on 6 November 2025, and that the judge failed to have sufficient regards to the interest of justice and fairness as articulated in Nwaigwe (adjournment: fairness) [2014] UKUT 00418 (IAC). The respondent submits the appeal should be remitted to the FtT for hearing afresh.
8. The respondent notes the appellant has provided a civil partnership registration and ‘granted Asylum Status letter’ for an individual who I shall refer to as [MC] in this decision, on HMCTS on 02 March 2026. The respondent notes the documents could be considered as part of the de novo hearing, with the potential of this constituting a new matter and requiring consent, or the appellant is free to make a Family visa application. I say no more about the observation made by the respondent, which no doubt the parties will address before the hearing before the FtT.
9. I consider the respondent’s concession to have been properly made. I am satisfied that the failure to adjourn the hearing was material to the assessment of the appellant’s credibility, and that the proper course in those circumstances is for the decision of the FtT to be set aside.
10. Given the nature of the error of law, I consider that the appeal must be reconsidered afresh, with no findings of fact preserved. The appropriate course is that the appeal should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be reheard de novo by a judge other than Judge Monson.
Notice of Decision
11. The appeal to the Upper Tribunal is allowed.
12. The decision of First-tier Tribunal Monson is set aside.
13. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard afresh by a different judge.

V. Mandalia
Upper Tribunal Judge Mandalia

Principal Resident Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

20 April 2026