Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-001640
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/62214/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 5th of June 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE NEVILLE

Between

BM
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Decided without a hearing

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

1. The appellant is an Iranian national whose protection claim was refused by the respondent on 17 April 2024. An appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (“FtT”) was dismissed on 3 January 2026. In her response to this onward appeal to the Upper Tribunal, the respondent states:
2. The grounds of appeal contend that [the FtT Judge (“FtTJ”)] failed to apply extant country guidance, failed to apply HJ (Iran) [2010] UKSC 31, and failed to provide adequate reasons.
3. As highlighted at [4] of the grounds of appeal the FtTJ found the appellant is of no adverse interest to the authorities. He mentions that the appellant took activities for 20 years since the age of 10. It is not apparent whether this is a finding or merely a quotation of the appellant’s evidence. He concluded that the appellant will not be identified as a supporter of KDPI and will not therefore be detained or arrested.
4. The Secretary of State accepts that there is merit in the grounds of appeal advanced. Although the FtTJ referred to a number of relevant authorities at paragraphs [20] and [22], he did not apply the guidance set out in HB (Kurds) Iran CG [2018] UKUT 430. It is also apparent that the FtTJ did not apply HJ (Iran) [2010] UKSC 31. While the Appellant’s skeleton argument dated 18 February 2024 does not expressly refer to HJ (Iran), paragraph [11] highlights that “the sole issue in the case can be expressed in this way: (i) is the Appellant at real risk of harm owing to his political opinions/political activities and race?”. The critical issue—namely, whether the Appellant’s political opinions are genuine and therefore engage the principles in HJ (Iran)—is a matter that requires proper consideration.
5. In view of the above, and in the interests of justice and out of an abundance of caution, the Respondent does not oppose the Appellant’s application for permission to appeal. The Respondent is neutral as to the venue at which the appeal should be reheard. The Respondent’s position is that the FtTJ’s finding that the Appellant is of no adverse interest to the authorities should be preserved, as this finding has not been specifically challenged in Ground 3.
2. In a decision sent to the parties on 1 May 2026, UTJ McWilliam accepted the respondent’s concession and directed that the FtT’s decision be set aside. She directed that disposal be decided by a judge on the papers. Despite permission having been given to the parties to make further written submissions in that respect, nothing has been received.
3. Pursuant to rule 34(1) of the Procedure Rules, I consider it appropriate to decide the remaining matters without a hearing. I do not agree with the respondent that any findings of fact should be preserved. A fair reading of the grounds includes an omnibus challenge to the sufficiency of reasons, including by reference to whether the appellant is of current interest to the authorities. This includes the error noted in para 3 of the response, the apparent omission of paragraphs from the reasons (the “Third” reason is immediately followed by the “Sixth” reason), and that elements of the FtT’s reasoning addresses claims which the appellant had never made. In my view it would be unsafe to preserve any of the FtT’s findings.
4. Given that all necessary fact-finding must be conducted afresh, and that in the circumstances it would be unfair to deprive the appellant of the two-tier appellate structure, the appropriate disposal is to remit the decision to the FtT.
5. I maintain the anonymity direction, the potential risk upon the appellant’s identification justifying derogation from the principle of open justice.
Notice of Decision
(i) The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error of law and is set aside.
(ii) The case is remitted to a differently constituted First-tier Tribunal for re-hearing with no facts preserved.

J Neville
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

27 May 2026