UI-2026-002238

• Status of case: Unreported
• Hearing date: 22 Sep 2026
• Promulgation date: 23 Sep 2026
• Publication date: 09 Oct 2026
• Last updated on: 09 Oct 2026

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-002238
First-tier Tribunal No:
PA/01759/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

23rd September 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE NEILSON

Between

CN
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: No appearance
For the Respondent: Ms Clewley, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard in person at Field House on 22 September 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
Introduction & Background
1. The appellant is a national of Nigeria. The respondent is the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The appellant appeals with permission granted on 27 April 2026 against the decision of the First-Tier Tribunal (“the FtT”) given on 14 March 2026 (“the FtT Decision”) to dismiss the appellant’s appeal against the refusal of her protection claim.
2. The appellant arrived in the UK on 20 December 2020 on a visitor visa valid to 1 June 2020. The appellant applied for asylum on 24 March 2024.
3. The appellant asserted that she was at risk on return due to being a member of a PSG or alternatively that she was entitled to Humanitarian Protection and/or that she should be allowed to stay in the UK on human rights grounds. The respondent refused the claim by the appellant on the basis that her evidence was inconsistent and contradictory and at times implausible.
4. The appellant appealed the respondent‘s decision to the FtT. In giving notice of appeal the appellant elected to have her appeal determined without an oral hearing.
5. The appeal was dealt with by the FtT on the papers without a hearing. The FtT dismissed the appeal.
6. The appellant appealed to this Tribunal on the ground that it was an error of law for the FtT to determine the appeal on the papers without a hearing. On 14 September 2026 lawyers for the appellant made an application to amend the ground of appeal by adding two additional grounds.
7. On 21 September 2026 the parties intimated to this Tribunal a signed Consent Order in the following terms:-
“1. Pursuant to Rule 39(1) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the parties consent to the disposal of the above appeal on the following agreed basis:
2. On the Secretary of State having reviewed the grounds of appeal and skeleton argument of the appellant, it is agreed that the FTT erred in proceeding to determine this appeal on the papers in light of the credibility issues in dispute and the paucity of documentation before the Tribunal. The respondent concurs that this matter may be remitted in its entirety.
3. It is submitted that it is a pragmatic and effective use of Tribunal resources that the Tribunal now summarily allows the appeal on the basis of a material error of law.
4. The Upper Tribunal is accordingly invited to vacate the hearing on 21 September 2026.”
Grounds of Appeal, Discussion and Conclusions
8. The ground of appeal upon which permission to appeal was granted was that there was a material error of law in determining the case on the papers in circumstances where credibility was in issue.
9. The appellant on 14 September 2026 made an application to rely upon two additional grounds of appeal. The new second ground of appeal is that the FtT failed to consider material evidence in the shape of a positive conclusive grounds decision of 22 January 2025. The second new ground of appeal is that the FtT failed to consider material medical and psychological evidence. There was no appearance by the appellant or their representative at the hearing before me. For the respondent Ms Clewley objected to the grounds of appeal being amended to include these grounds as the respondent was only willing to concede that there was an error of law in procedural terms in the FtT dealing with the case on the papers. In the circumstances I do not consider that it is in the interests of justice to allow amendment of the ground of appeal. It is in any event not clear to me that the evidence referenced by the appellant in proposed additional grounds two and three was ever before the FtT. I refuse the application for amendment of the ground of appeal.
10. In relation to the ground of appeal that is before me I take into consideration the case of SSGA (Disposal without considering merits, R.25) Itaq [2023 UKUT 12 (IAC) and in particular paragraph 65 of that decision. It is clear from the FtT Decision that this was a case determined on credibility grounds (see paragraph 22 of the FtT Decision). I agree with the parties that this was a case where it was necessary for there to be a hearing to allow the credibility issue to be tested, particularly where there was a paucity of other evidence. It was a material error of law not to allow a hearing and only to deal with the case on the papers. I accordingly allow the appeal.
Conclusion
11. For the reasons set out above I find that there is a material error of law and the appeal is allowed.
Notice of Decision
The decision of the FtT did involve the making of a material error on a point of law and the appeal is accordingly allowed.
The case is remitted back to the First Tier Tribunal to be heard anew before a Judge other than Judge Suffield-Thompson.

S NEILSON
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
22 September 2026