Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-002765
UI-2026-002971
UI-2026-002972
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/55557/2024
LP/12767/2024
PA/55559/2024
LP/12770/2024
PA/55560/2024
LP/12771/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 30 July 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RASTOGI

Between

VS
BS
RS
(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 appellants appeal the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Khosla (“the Judge”) dated 26 January 2026 (“the Decision”) dismissing VS’s appeal against the respondent’s refusal of their protection and human rights claims. VS is the main appellant and the judge noted that BS and RS were dependent upon her application but did not issue a separate decision in their appeals.
2. A judge of the Upper Tribunal granted the appellants permission to appeal. By way of a Rule 24 notice dated 3 July 2026 the respondent concedes that the grounds of appeal disclose a material procedural unfairness which impacted the assessment of the appellants’ credibility which rendered the entire Decision unsafe. The detailed reasons for the respondent’s concessions are set out at paragraphs 3 to 10 of the Rule 24 notice.
3. The respondent accepts this error is such that the entire Decision should be set aside with no preserved findings and the appeal remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing before a different judge.
4. By way of a Rule 25 response dated 6 July 2026, the appellants consented to the remittal of the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing.
5. In all of the circumstances, I set aside the Decision with no preserved findings. Taking into consideration the Court of Appeal’s decision in AEB v SSHD [2022] EWCA Civ 1512, the decision in Begum (Remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 00046 (IAC) and para. 7.2 of the Senior President’s Practice Statements, the appropriate venue for remaking the appeal is the First-tier Tribunal.
Notice of Decision
The Decision of Judge Khosla was procedurally unfair and is set aside with no preserved findings.
The appellants’ appeals are to be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard de novo by a different judge.

SJ Rastogi

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
20 July 2026