Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2026-001874
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/56997/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision and Reasons Issued:
On 4 August 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MALIK KC

Between

AA
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION made)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE
FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation

For the Appellant: Ms Evin Atas, Counsel, instructed by Linkworths Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr Julien Nappy, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 29 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 them or any member of their family. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant is a citizen of Türkiye, born in 1999. He arrived in the United Kingdom in 2022 and claimed asylum in 2024 on the basis that he would be at risk on return because of his Kurdish ethnicity and involvement with the Peoples' Democratic Party (“HDP”). The Secretary of State refused his protection claim, and the associated human rights claim, on the basis that his account of being a member of the HDP and having been the subject of adverse attention from the authorities was not credible. He also relied on his relationship with a British citizen (“RF”). He claimed to have met RF on social media and to have started a relationship with her in 2023. The Secretary of State noted that they were not married and had not lived together in a relationship akin to marriage for at least two years. Accordingly, the Secretary of State concluded that his removal from the United Kingdom would not breach the United Kingdom's obligations under the Refugee Convention, would not entitle him to humanitarian protection, and would not be incompatible with his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
2. The Appellant appealed against the Secretary of State’s decision to the First-tier Tribunal. First-tier Tribunal Judge Beg (“the Judge”) heard the appeal on 11 February 2026 and dismissed it on all grounds on the same day. The Appellant and RF gave oral evidence before the Judge. The Judge found that the Appellant was not a credible witness and did not face a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of suffering serious harm on return. The Judge also found that the Appellant’s relationship with RF was not genuine and subsisting and that, accordingly, his removal would not be incompatible with Article 8. The Appellant now appeals against the Judge’s decision to the Upper Tribunal.
3. In her admirably clear and focused submissions, Ms Evin Atas, who appeared for the Appellant, submits that the Judge’s decision in respect of the Article 8 claim is vitiated by procedural unfairness and irrationality. The Secretary of State did not refuse the Article 8 claim on the basis that the relationship between the Appellant and RF was not genuine and subsisting. Rather, it was refused on the basis that they had not lived together as a couple for at least two years. Indeed, the Judge herself acknowledged, at [50], that the Secretary of State considered the relationship to be genuine and subsisting. The Secretary of State did not raise any issue as to the genuineness of the relationship, either in the written review or at the hearing. This was an issue raised for the first time by the Judge in her decision. The Appellant was not on notice of it. Mr Julien Nappy, who appeared for the Secretary of State, fairly and properly conceded that this ground is made out and that the Judge’s decision in respect of the Article 8 claim is vitiated by an error of law. I agree. It was procedurally unfair for the Judge to determine the Article 8 appeal on a basis that had not been advanced by the Secretary of State, either before or at the hearing. The genuineness of the relationship was not in issue before the Judge. If the Judge had concerns about it, those concerns should have been raised with the parties to enable them to consider their position and respond accordingly.
4. In the circumstances, I find that the Judge erred on a point of law in dismissing the appeal on Article 8 grounds.
5. Ms Atas advanced no challenge to the Judge’s findings in relation to the protection claim, and those findings, at [15]-[37], shall therefore stand. The Judge’s conclusion that the Appellant’s removal from the United Kingdom would not be in breach of the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Refugee Convention, or that he was not entitled to humanitarian protection, is not affected by the error of law in relation to the Article 8 claim. I do not interfere with those unchallenged conclusions. Accordingly, I set aside the Judge’s decision insofar as it relates to the Article 8 claim.
6. I have a discretion under section 12(2)(b) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (“the 2007 Act”) either to remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal for reconsideration or to re-make the decision in the Upper Tribunal. In considering how to exercise that discretion, I have carefully had regard to paragraphs 7.1 to 7.3 of the Senior President’s Practice Statement for the Immigration and Asylum Chambers, and to the guidance in AEB v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWCA Civ 1512, [2023] 4 WLR 12, and Begum (Remaking or Remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 46 (IAC). I am satisfied that the effect of the Judge’s error was to deprive the Appellant of a fair hearing in relation to the Article 8 claim. I therefore exercise my discretion under section 12(2)(b) of the 2007 Act to remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal for the decision on the Article 8 claim to be re-made.
7. If the Secretary of State wishes to raise an issue as to the genuineness of the relationship between the Appellant and RF, she must do so in writing prior to the remitted hearing before the First-tier Tribunal. It will be for the Judge hearing the remitted appeal to decide whether there is an issue as to the genuineness of the relationship and, if so, how that issue is to be resolved.
NOTICE OF DECISION
8. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision, insofar as it relates to the Article 8 claim, is set aside. The unchallenged findings in relation to the protection claim, at [15]-[37], are preserved and shall stand. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a rehearing of the Article 8 aspect of the appeal.
ANONYMITY
9. I consider that an anonymity order is justified in the circumstances of this case having regard to the Presidential Guidance Note No 2 of 2022, Anonymity Orders and Hearing in Private, and the Overriding Objective. I make an order under Rule 14(1) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008. Accordingly, unless and until a Tribunal or court directs otherwise, the Appellant is granted anonymity. No report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify them or any member of their family. This direction applies to both parties. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to contempt of court proceedings.

Zane Malik KC
Deputy Judge of Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
Date: 24 July 2026