Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-001731
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/56700/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

29th June 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RAE-REEVES

Between

RA
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr A Malik, Counsel.
For the Respondent: Ms McKenzie, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer.

Heard at Field House on 19 June 2026

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
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The appeal before the First-tier Tribunal
1. The appellant is a citizen of Ghana. He appealed against the respondent’s refusal of his protection and human rights claim. His appeal came before First-tier Tribunal Judge Richards (‘FtT’), who dismissed the appeal on humanitarian protection grounds and also dismissed the appeal under Article 8 ECHR with reference to Appendix Private Life. The FtT decision was dated 12 February 2026.
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal
2. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal on all grounds. In relation to international protection, the judge rejected the appellant’s case. In relation to Article 8, the judge also concluded that the appellant had not established very significant obstacles to integration on return to Ghana.
Grounds of appeal
3. The grounds of appeal were confined to the Article 8 aspect of the decision. In summary, it was argued that the FtT failed to provide an adequate analysis of whether there would be very significant obstacles to the appellant’s integration in Ghana under Appendix Private Life. No proportionality assessment under Article 8 was conducted. It was not argued that the judge had erred in the determination of the protection claim.
DISCUSSION
4. At the outset of the hearing, Ms McKenzie conceded the appeal. She noted that the respondent accepted counsel’s note of the hearing before the First-tier Tribunal and, in light of that note, accepted that the appeal must succeed on Article 8 grounds alone. This was on the basis that a full analysis had not been provided of very significant obstacles under Appendix Private Life, nor had there been a proportionality exercise.
5. The judge deals with Article 8 at paragraphs 34 to 36. He notes that the appellant has not relied on any medical evidence, but appears to accept that he is taking Mirtazapine and that it may be difficult for him to obtain that medication in Ghana. He refers to the CPIN and notes that mental health treatment in Ghana is very poor. Counsel’s attendance note, which was accepted, demonstrates that it was submitted that the appellant is dependent on Mirtazapine for basic functioning and is dependent on his father for his basic daily needs. It was submitted that paragraph 18 of Agyarko v SSHD [2017] UKSC 11 applied, and that his need for medication and poor mental health would negatively impact upon his ability to integrate.
6. In light of the respondent’s concession, I am satisfied that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of a material error of law in relation to the Article 8 claim.
7. It is important to note that the appeal before me succeeded on Article 8 grounds alone. The findings of the First-tier Tribunal in relation to international protection were not challenged before me and shall stand.
8. As to disposal, Mr Malik confirmed that further evidence would likely be adduced. It was accepted by both representatives, and I agree, that the most appropriate course is for the case to be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh hearing de novo on Article 8 grounds only, before a judge other than First-tier Tribunal Judge Richards.
Notice of Decision
9. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of a material error of law in relation to Article 8 only.
10. On the basis of the respondent’s concession, the appeal is allowed on Article 8 grounds alone.
11. The findings of the First-tier Tribunal in respect of the appellant’s international protection claim are preserved and shall stand.
12. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh hearing de novo on Article 8 grounds only, before any judge other than First-tier Tribunal Judge Richards.

V Rae-Reeves
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Rae-Reeves
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
22/06/2026