Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-001709
First-tier Tribunal No:
PA/56015/2024
LP/13528/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

4th June 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RUDDICK

Between

ZA
(Anonymity order made)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Appeal Determined without a hearing pursuant to Rule 34
of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant appeals with permission against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (“FtT”), promulgated on 5 January 2026, dismissing his protection appeal. In its decision of 7 April 2026 granting the appellant permission to appeal, the FtT found that it was arguably procedurally unfair for the FtT to have proceed with the appeal in the appellant’s absence, for the following reasons:
“3. It is arguable that the Judge erred in proceeding with the hearing in the Appellant’s absence rather than giving more time on the date of the hearing given that the Judge had already noted that the Appellant had explicitly indicated in his comments the day before the hearing that he was intending to attend the hearing. This was arguably reinforced by the Appellant uploading evidence for his appeal the day before the hearing.
“4. In addition, the Judge’s determination is dated 5.1.26. The Judge was aware by the time of completing the written decision that the Appellant had emailed the Tribunal at 13.09 hrs on the day of the hearing in which the Appellant stated that he had not been sent the joining instructions for the remote hearing. The Judge was also aware that several calls had been made to the Tribunal during the hearing itself. Seized with these pieces of information, the Judge arguably erred in not giving case management directions for another hearing rather than proceeding to determine the appeal.”
2. The FTT judge granting permission further found that it was arguable that this procedural unfairness materially undermined the FtT’s adverse credibility findings.
3. On 13 May 2026, the respondent filed a Rule 24 response. She carefully reviewed the evidence of events immediately before and during the day of the FtT hearing and concluded that
“4. On the particular circumstances of the case, the Respondent is prepared to accept that the FtT’s decision to proceed in the Appellant’s absence did not take into account a number of relevant considerations. The failure to do so amounts to a material error of law.
”5. The Respondent is content for the decision of the FtT to be set aside without any preserved findings of fact and for the appeal to be remitted to for a de novo hearing.”
4. As the respondent agrees that the decision should be set aside and remitted to the FTT for a fresh hearing, a further hearing in this appeal would serve no practical purpose.
5. I have taken into account the guidance in Majera v SSHD [2025] EWCA Civ 1597 before deciding whether to remit the appeal for a fresh hearing before the FtT or retain it in the Upper Tribunal. I consider that remittal is appropriate in this case, because the appellant has been entirely deprived of a fair hearing before the FtT there are no preserved findings of fact.
Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal promulgated 5 January 2026 is set aside in its entirety and the appeal is remitted to the First-tier tribunal for a fresh hearing on all issues, before any other judge.

E. Ruddick

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

27 May 2026