UI-2026-002322

• Status of case: Unreported
• Hearing date: 03 Jun 2026
• Promulgation date: 16 Jun 2026
• Publication date: 01 Jul 2026
• Last updated on: 01 Jul 2026

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-002322
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/61123/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Directions Issued:

On 16th of June 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PINDER

Between

S B
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent


DECISION AND REASONS
MADE WITHOUT A HEARING PURSUANT TO RULE 34 OF THE TRIBUNAL PROCEDURE (UPPER TRIBUNAL) RULES 2008

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.

1. The Appellant appeals against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Beg (‘the Judge’) dated 17th February 2026 dismissing the Appellant’s protection and human rights appeal.
2. FtT Judge Dhanji granted permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal to the Appellant on all grounds pursued by way of a decision dated 6th May 2026.
3. On 26th May 2026, the Upper Tribunal received the Respondent’s reply under Rule 24. In this reply, the Respondent accepts that the Judge has erred in law and submits that the appeal should be remitted to the FtT to be considered afresh.
4. In light of the above and the fact that the Respondent has helpfully been able to set out her position very clearly through her Rule 24 reply, I proceed to determine this appeal without conducting a hearing.
5. Having considered the Appellant’s grounds of appeal and the Respondent’s Rule 24 reply, I am in agreement that the Judge has erred in law. The error that the Judge made in attributing a piece of evidence to the Appellant’s brother, instead of the Appellant himself, was clearly material to the Judge’s credibility findings in relation to core aspects of the Appellant’s account, as acknowledged by the Respondent. Similarly so, when the Judge made a mistake in finding that the Appellant had not promptly applied for asylum, when he had in fact done so. The Respondent also agrees that there is merit in the grounds of appeal pleading that the Judge expected corroborative evidence to have been submitted by the Appellant – an expectation, which was not consistent with available background evidence.
6. In light of the reasons above, I determine under Rule 34 without conducting a hearing that the Judge’s decision contains a material error of law and should be set aside. Considering the centrality of those errors of law to the issues that were to be determined in this appeal, namely the core issues of credibility, I also agree that it is appropriate for the matter to be remitted to the FtT to be heard afresh by a different judge. For these reasons, I set aside the entirety of the Judge’s decision.
7. I have also maintained the Anonymity Order since this was issued by the FtT and is appropriate in light of the Appellant having a pending and undetermined appeal for international protection involving claims concerning the Turkish authorities.
Notice of Decision
8. The Decision of FtT Judge Beg dated 17th February 2026 involved the making of a material errors of law. The decision is set aside with no findings preserved.
9. The Appellant’s appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard afresh by a different judge.

Sarah Pinder

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

03.06.2026