Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-002143
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/61597/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 27 July 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HIRST

Between

AHS
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

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

1. The Appellant appeals from the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 9 February 2026 dismissing his appeal on protection grounds.
2. The Appellant relies on two grounds of appeal. First, he contends that the First-tier Tribunal erred by making findings inconsistent with the relevant CPIN in relation to the accepted facts of the Appellant’s illicit relationship and the feud between his family and his partner’s family. Second, he contends that the First-tier Tribunal erred by failing to consider risk on return arising from the Appellant’s lack of a CSID identity document.
3. On 23 April 2026 the First-tier Tribunal granted permission to appeal on both grounds.
4. On 12 May 2026 the Respondent filed a Rule 24 response to the notice of appeal, conceding that there was a material error of law in respect of both grounds of appeal.
5. Having reviewed the decision of the First-tier Tribunal and the grounds of appeal, I am satisfied that there were material errors of law in the decision of the First-tier Tribunal.
6. In particular, at §16 of the decision the First-tier Tribunal accepted that the Appellant entered into a relationship with a girl from a family with whom his own family had a long-standing feud. The First-tier Tribunal concluded at §20 that the Appellant was not at risk of retribution from the girl’s family because of (i) the lack of provenance of an arrest warrant, and (ii) the Appellant’s inability to provide details or documentary evidence of the girl’s family’s influence. Further, at §21 the First-tier Tribunal found that in any event the Appellant could seek protection and/or relocate internally. The findings at paragraphs §20-21 are not supported by the relevant CPIN, but the judge did not make reference to the CPIN; although the judge was not bound to accept the evidence in the CPIN, he did not give any reasons for rejecting it in his decision. That was an error of law which was material to the outcome of the appeal.
7. In relation to the second ground of appeal, the Appellant’s lack of documentation was clearly identified (at §3 of the decision) as an issue in the appeal. The First-tier Tribunal did not however consider that issue, nor make any findings in relation to it. That was clearly a material error of law.
8. I therefore set the decision of the First-tier Tribunal aside. Having regard to paragraph 7 of the Practice Statement and the guidance in AEB [2022] EWCA Civ 1512, I consider that it is necessary for the appeal to be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for rehearing before a different judge. The findings at §16 of the decision are preserved.

Notice of Decision

The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of a material error of law and is set aside. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for rehearing before a different judge with the findings at paragraph 16 of the decision preserved.

L Hirst

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

17 July 2026