Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-002487
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/00535/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

21st October 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE NEVILLE

Between

AB
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr A Chelliah, counsel
For the Respondent: Ms A Everett, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 13 August 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
1. The appellant is a national of Sierra Leone. The respondent refused his protection claim on 17 January 2025 and shortly afterwards the appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (“FtT”).
2. Over the following two or three months the appellant received correspondence by post from the FtT. There was then a period of silence during which, he assumed, the appeal waited its turn to be listed. Instead, on 24 February 2026 the appellant received an email from the FtT containing its decision to dismiss his appeal. The decision records that there had been a hearing (it is unclear when, as the date specified is likely incorrect) and the Judge further records as follows:
5. The Appellant did not attend the hearing by CVP or sign in at Taylor House, and I waited until after mid-day to hear the case. My clerk tried to contact the Appellant without success. I satisfied myself the Appellant had been sent the date and venue of the hearing and he was put on notice by the non-compliance directions on 1 September 2025 that I would proceed today. I resolved it was in the interests of justice so to do given the Appellant has failed to participate further in his appeal.
3. The appellant applied for permission to appeal, which a different FtT Judge refused as follows:
2. The grounds assert that the appellant was not informed of the hearing and wants the opportunity to present evidence. The judge was satisfied that all reasonable steps had been taken to serve notice and that he had been put on notice by non-compliance directions on 1 September 2025 and that the appellant has failed to participate in his appeal. Despite the assertions of the appellant, no proper explanation is given for why he failed to comply with directions or why he did not attend. There are no identified arguable errors of law.
4. This was, in my view, insufficient to explain why there was no arguable error of law in the FtT’s decision to hear the appeal. Neither of the Judges seised of the appellant’s case so far had told him what reasonable steps had been taken to notify him of the hearing, for example that a notice of hearing had been sent to particular postal or email address, and when. The case did not proceed on MyHMCTS, so the method of service would have been shown in the notes or emails left on the Tribunal’s file.
5. The above observation was also made by UTJ Blum when granting the appellant’s renewed application for permission. The appellant has very recently been able to secure legal representation; up to then he had always represented himself. There is still no information before me that answers the appellant’s concerns.
6. The Upper Tribunal is poorly equipped to answer whether notices were properly sent to parties before the FtT. In general, it is preferable that the FtT ascertains and explains the relevant circumstances itself; the FtT has the most straightforward access to the file and the power to then set aside the decision if a notice of hearing was not received and it is in the interests of justice to do so. Simply referring to an unparticularised assertion in the decision, as the permission judge did here, has simply occasioned further delay and expense in the resolution of the appellant’s protection claim.
7. While the Upper Tribunal has the power to require the FtT to provide a copy of its file, that step had not been taken by the time of today’s hearing and would have necessitated further adjournment and delay. I set those adverse consequences alongside the appellant’s statements and submissions when bringing this onward appeal, strongly evidencing an enthusiastic and credible wish to put his best case forward in support of his protection appeal. I accept that he did not receive the notice of hearing or the prior directions. Even should it transpire that they were properly sent, their non-receipt stands as a procedural unfairness that, in the present appeal, stands as an error of law. The FtT’s decision is set aside.
8. The parties agreed that in those circumstances the appeal should be remitted to the FtT with no facts preserved. I am satisfied that the extent of fact-finding required and the lack of a fair hearing so far indicates that disposal. The appellant’s protection appeal is ongoing and maintaining his anonymity in the interim justifies derogation from the principle of open justice.
Notice of Decision
(i) The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error of law and is set aside.
(ii) The case is remitted to a differently composed First-tier Tribunal for re-hearing with no facts preserved.

J Neville
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

13 August 2026