Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-001712
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/62239/2024
LP/07926/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 24th of April 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MAHMOOD

Between

GP
(ANONYMITY ORDER Continued)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant had sought permission to appeal on Article 8 ECHR grounds (only) against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Fern dated 29 December 2025.
2. The Appellant’s grounds are dated 8 January 2026. Paragraph 3 of the grounds states that, “The Appellants apply for permission to appeal against the decision under Article 8 of the ECHR.”
3. Permission to appeal was granted by First-tier Tribunal Judge Clegg who had stated:
“However, it is also apparent that the Appellant and his wife (who is a dependent on his claim) have a daughter who lives in the UK. The daughter is also a dependent on the claim and, according to medical records, she was born in January 2021 which would make her 4 years old at the time of the hearing. She has therefore been in the UK all her life. The Judge did not make any assessment pursuant to s55 of the Borders, Citizenship & Immigration Act 2009 as to the best interests of the Appellant’s daughter. This feature was therefore not considered as part of the Judge’s Article 8 assessment. It may be inferred that the Judge reached the view that it is in the child’s best interests to remain with her parents and to return to India as a family unit. However, it is arguable that this would have made a material difference to the Article 8 assessment.”
4. By way of a Rule 24 reply dated 21 April 2026 the Respondent has made a concession and has stated:
“The respondent concedes the appeal. It is accepted that the FTTJ materially erred when he failed to consider the best interests of the appellants child within the realms of article 8 proportionality assessment. It may be inferred that the FTT considered the child within the family unit when making the assessment however it may be material to the overall article 8 assessment as the FTTj has failed to consider section 55 best interests element.
The R would submit that the FTTJ was correct to consider the 2 previous determinations under devaseelan however it is noted the dependant child was not considered in these determinations.
The R respectfully submits the case needs to be considered in the FT for a proportionality assessment.”
5. Applying Rule 34 of The Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 I consider that it is appropriate to make a decision in this case without a hearing.
6. In view of the Respondent’s concession, properly made, the Appellant’s appeal is allowed in respect of Article 8 ECHR. For the avoidance of doubt, there was no appeal against (nor was permission to appeal granted) in respect of the dismissal of the Appellant’s appeal on all other matters, including in respect of asylum, humanitarian protection and Article 3 EHCR. Those parts of the appeal remain dismissed and FTT Judge Fern’s decision stands in respect of those matters. Those findings are preserved.
7. FTT Judge Fern’s decision in respect of Article 8 ECHR (only) is set aside. None of the findings in respect of the discrete Article 8 issues are preserved. There shall be a complete re-hearing in respect of Article 8 ECHR (only).
8. Having considered the Senior President’s Practice Statement and Begum alongside the written submissions, it is appropriate that this matter be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a rehearing on the issue of Article 8 ECHR only.
9. I have considered whether the matter can return to FTT Judge Fern to undertake that task, but on balance I conclude that a judge other than FTT Judge Fern should hear the matter at the First-tier Tribunal.
Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal contains a material error of law in respect of Article 8 ECHR and that part of the decision (only) is set aside.
The Article 8 ECHR matter is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for rehearing in respect of Article 8 ECHR only. None of the findings of FTT Judge Fern in respect of the Article 8 ECHR are preserved.
The Appellant’s appeal was dismissed by FTT Judge Fern in respect of all other matters, including asylum, humanitarian protection and Article 3 EHCR. The Appellant’s appeal remains dismissed in respect of all other matters. The findings of FTT Judge Fern on those matters are preserved.

Abid Mahmood

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
22 April 2026