Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-001951
UI-2026-001636

First-tier Tribunal No:
PA/52901/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 9th of June 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RUDDICK

Between

MY
(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”), dated 20 January 2026, dismissing his protection appeal. On 7 April 2026, the FtT granted the appellant permission to appeal on Grounds 2-7. The appellant renewed his application for permission to appeal on Ground 1, and on 30 April 2026, the Upper Tribunal granted him permission on that grounds as well.
2. On 13 May 2026, the respondent filed a Rule 24 response. She considered that the language used by the FtT at [46] and [71] “demonstrated” that an incorrect standard of proof had been applied (Ground 4). She also accepted that it had been procedurally unfair to refuse to admit the appellant’s brother’s asylum interview records (Ground 1).
3. The respondent’s position is that these two errors are sufficient to require that the decision be set aside in its entirety and that the appeal should be remitted to the FtT for a fresh hearing, with no findings preserved.
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 agree that the FtT’s decision should be set aside in its entirety. The appellant was granted permission to appeal on seven grounds, two of which are accepted by the respondent and none of which are opposed. Grounds Two, Three and Seven directly impugn the FtT’s credibility assessment. The brother’s asylum interview record was adduced in order to corroborate the appellant’s account, such that Ground One – which is conceded- also undermines the safety of the FtT’s credibility assessment. Ground Four – which is also conceded – is that the FtT made its findings of fact to the wrong standard of proof.
6. 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 there are no preserved findings of fact and the respondent accepts that the appellant was deprived of a fair hearing.

Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 20 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