Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-002617
UI-2026-003007
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/01908/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 15 October 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE REEDS

Between

PS
(ANONYMITY ORDER CONTINUED)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms Mair, Counsel instructed on behalf of the appellant
For the Respondent : Mr Tan, Senior Presenting Officer on behalf of the respondent

Heard at (IAC) on 14 October 2026

DECISION MADE PURSUANT TO RULE 40 OF THE TRIBUNAL PROCEDURE ( UPPER TRIBUNAL) RULES 2008
1. The appellant appeals with permission against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal Judge (hereinafter referred to as the “FtTJ”) who dismissed the appellant’s protection and human rights appeal in a decision promulgated on the 28 April 2026 .
2. Permission to appeal that decision was sought and permission was granted by FtTJ Cartin on limited grounds but on renewal UTJ Mahmood granted permission on the remaining grounds on 23 June 2026.
3. The FtTJ did make an anonymity order, and no grounds were submitted during the hearing for such an order to be discharged. Anonymity is granted because the facts of the appeal involve a protection claim.
Rule 14: The Tribunal Procedure(Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008: Unless and until a tribunal or court directs otherwise, the appellant is granted anonymity. No report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify him. This direction applies both to the appellant and to the respondent. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to contempt of court proceedings.
4. The appellant is a citizen of Namibia, who appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (“FtT”) against a decision to refuse his protection and human rights claim.
5. In a decision promulgated on 28 April 2026 , the FtTJ dismissed the appeal. The decision letter (p225) had set out the material facts as accepted, namely the appellant’s sexual orientation and that he had experienced problems in Namibia but in his assessment of the evidence did not accept that the appellant would be at risk on return to Namibia from non-state actors, or that he would be identified because of his tribal affiliation and that he could internally relocate. The FtTJ ‘s assessment of the material was that the difficulties for gay and /or bisexual men was not sufficient severity to amount to persecution. The FtTJ also dismissed his Article 8 claim in that basis.
6. Permission to appeal having been granted by UTJ Mahmood on all grounds, the appeal was listed for hearing.
7. At the hearing, Ms Mair, Counsel on behalf of the appellant and Mr Tan on behalf of the respondent confirmed that they had been able to discuss the issues raised in the appeal and that he did not seek to rely upon the document previously provided by the respondent. He was in agreement that the grounds of challenge were accepted by the respondent as demonstrating material errors of law in the assessment of the issue of risk and the assessment of the evidence including the expert evidence advanced on behalf of the appellant. Ms Mair agreed with this.
8. The parties are in agreement that the decision discloses the making of an error of law on the basis advanced both in the original grounds and the renewed grounds when read together that went to the core of the issues raised and the assessment of risk and issues of internal relocation. I agree with the advocates that there are errors of law in the assessment of risk and in the assessment of the evidence as relevant including the expert evidence and as such were material to the outcome.
9. Both parties have invited the Upper Tribunal to set aside the decision and in view of the fact finding that is necessary to re-hear the appeal both submit that the appeal should properly be heard afresh. Both parties submitted it should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal. I have given careful consideration to the Joint Practice Statement of the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal concerning the disposal of appeals in this Tribunal and have done so in light of the submissions of the parties. I have considered the issues in the light of the practice statement recited and the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in AEB v SSHD[2022] EWCA Civ 1512 and the decision in Begum [2023] UKUT 46(IAC. ) As to the remaking of the decision, I am satisfied that in light of the errors of law identified and there will be fact finding which will be necessary, alongside the legal issues relevant to the risk and the threshold of persecution, the appeal falls within paragraphs 7.2 (b) of the practice statement. I therefore remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal for that hearing to take place.
10. Accordingly, I am satisfied that it would in all circumstances be appropriate to set aside the decision in its entirety and for it to be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard afresh. Whilst no findings are preserved, as recorded earlier, the decision letter set out the material facts that were accepted.
11. Rule 40 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) rules 2008 allows the Upper Tribunal to give a decision orally at a hearing. Rule 40 (3) states that the Upper Tribunal must provide written reasons with a decision notice to each party as soon as reasonably practicable after making a decision which finally disposes of all issues in the proceedings. Rule 40 (3) provides exceptions to the rule if the decision is made with the consent of the parties, or the parties have consented to the Upper Tribunal not giving written reasons. In this case the parties consented to a decision without reasons pursuant to Rule 40(3) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008. I am satisfied that the parties have given such consent at the hearing.
Decision
12. The decision of the First.-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error on a point of law; the decision is set aside and shall be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard afresh.

Upper Tribunal Judge Reeds
Upper Tribunal Judge Reeds

14 October2026