Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-002711
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/51201/2022
IA/03344/2022

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

2nd July 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MAHMOOD

Between

SHAHERBANO
Also known as SHAHER BANO
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant had sought permission to appeal against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge CJ Cowx dated 30 October 2023. The matter relates to international protection and human rights.
2. The Appellant’s application for permission with grounds of appeal are dated 28 January 2026.
3. Time was extended to admit the Appellant’s late appeal and permission to appeal was granted by First-tier Tribunal Judge Dieu by way of a decision dated 22 May 2026. The grant of permission states,
“The application is out of time. The FTTJ decision was promulgated on the 13th November 2023. This application was submitted on the 28th January 2026. It is therefore some 26 months out of time which is very substantial. The reason given by the appellant essentially comes down to having relied but let down by her legal advisors at the time. The appellant has provided some evidence to show that her complaints against her initial representatives was partly upheld, and I note that includes that they did not keep her updated on her case in 2023 and 2024. The appellant then changed firms and it is said that that firm submitted the wrong application to the tribunal. The appellant changed firms again and that firm also continued to pursue the wrong application. The appellant has not provided any evidence in support of that, however. Whilst I am prepared to excuse her for the delay until 2024, there is no evidence to corroborate what then happened. That concerns me because more then a year passes before the immediate application is made. In fact the SLCC report speaks of the appellant submitting a fresh claim in March 2024, rather than any challenge to the FTTJ decision. Looking to the interest of justice notwithstanding the delay, this is a protection appeal and so I am mindful of the potential consequences of a wrong decision. I 1 also have regard to the merits of her substantive grounds (below). I am prepare in the circumstances to extend time.
2. It is arguable that the SLCC report finding that the appellant had not been notified of the appeal hearing date, and the representatives themselves having failed to attend, the appellant has been denied a fair hearing through no fault of her own.
3. Permission to appeal is granted.”
4. By way of a Rule 24 reply dated 16 June 2026 the Respondent has made a concession and has stated:
“Ground 1 – Procedural unfairness – failure to notify the Appellant
The R concedes there was a material error regarding procedural unfairness. The correct assessment for fairness when considering whether to proceed or adjourn is set out in Nwaigwe (adjournment: fairness) [2014] UKUT 418 (IAC) (4 September 2014) and SH (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 1284 (08 November 2011). The key question is whether the A was denied a fair hearing. It seems apparent in this appeal the A was, as such it would be fair for the appeal to be remitted.
It is noted that the cause of this unfairness is based on the prior representation, rather than the Judge however where the overall decision is unfair there must be a recourse for the A. This is the position agreed in Lord Advocate v Scotsman Publications [1989] UKHL 7 (06 July 1989) and FP (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWCA Civ 13 (23 January 2007).
Relief
SSHD submits the decision is unfair and as such the only remedial action is remittal to the FTT.
5. Applying Rule 34 of The Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 I consider that it is appropriate to make a decision in this case without a hearing.
6. In view of the Respondent’s concession, properly made, the Appellant’s appeal is allowed.
7. FTT Judge Cowx’s decision is set aside in its entirety. None of the findings shall stand. There shall be a complete re-hearing on all matters.
8. Having considered the Senior President’s Practice Statement and Begum alongside the written submissions, it is appropriate that this matter be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a rehearing on all issues.
Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal contains a material error of law and is set aside in its entirety.
The matter is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a rehearing on all issues.

Abid Mahmood

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
24 June 2026