Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-002787
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/02057/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 24 July 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CANAVAN

Between

F K
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant is granted anonymity because the case involves consideration of a protection claim. 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 (FK) appealed the respondent’s decision dated 05 March 2024 to refuse his protection and human rights claim.
2. First-tier Tribunal Judge C.J.T. Lester dismissed the appeal in a decision sent on 24 February 2026.
3. The appellant applied for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on the ground that the judge failed to give adequate consideration to the fact that a ‘conclusive grounds’ decision had been made in relation to a past experience of modern slavery.
4. First-tier Tribunal Judge C.J.T. Lester refused permission in an order dated 04 May 2026.
5. The appellant renewed the application to the Upper Tribunal and was granted permission to appeal in an order sent on 17 June 2026. The judge found that it was not arguable that the First-tier Tribunal erred in not considering a Conclusive Grounds decision that was not in evidence at the time of the First-tier Tribunal hearing. However, it was arguable that the judge had failed to make any meaningful findings relating to the facts of the case. The fact that the appellant did not attend the hearing did not obviate the judge from their duty to make adequate findings in relation to the claim.
6. The respondent filed a rule 24 response on 29 June 2026 stating that she accepts that the decision involved the making of a material error of law and does not oppose the appeal. The respondent considered that there was no alternative but to remit the case for a fresh hearing in the First-tier Tribunal.
7. In the circumstances, it would not be an effective use of court time to list the case for hearing if it can be determined without a hearing under rule 34 of The Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008.
ERROR OF LAW
8. It is a matter for the Upper Tribunal to decide whether the First-tier Tribunal decision involved the making of an error of law or not. The information before the Upper Tribunal indicates that the appellant barely engaged with the appeal process in the First-tier Tribunal. He did not comply with directions and did not produce any further evidence. It is recorded that he did attend a hearing listed on 11 November 2025, which was converted to a case management hearing. It is reasonable to infer that the appellant would have spoken to the judge at that hearing and that it would have been explained to him the need to produce evidence to support his case. It is likely that the appellant has been given a fair opportunity to prepare and present his case before the First-tier Tribunal. However, when the case was listed for a further hearing he produced no further evidence and did not attend the hearing.
9. In the application made to the Upper Tribunal the appellant argued that he was a vulnerable person who is a ‘confirmed victim of modern slavery’. The appellant’s grounds of appeal appear to suggest that his mental health affected his ability to participate in the hearing. No copy of the Conclusive Grounds decision said to have been made by the respondent appears to be in the documents before the Upper Tribunal. Nor does the limited medical evidence before the Upper Tribunal suggest that the appellant suffers from a mental health condition that would necessarily prevent him from participating in a hearing. A letter dated 06 March 2025 from the Bristol North Somerset & South Gloucestershire Talking Therapies NHS stated that the appellant had completed a questionnaire relating to his experience of low mood and anxiety. The assessment scores indicated, at that time, that the appellant was likely to be suffering from severe depressive symptoms and moderate anxiety. However, he had no thoughts of harming himself, was reported to be managing with self-care, and reported his family to be a protective factor.
10. The respondent does not oppose the appeal in the Upper Tribunal. I agree with the assessment of the Upper Tribunal judge who granted permission and with the respondent’s assessment of the First-tier Tribunal decision. Although the decision is eight pages long, it is almost all in a standard template format with only a few paragraphs added relating to procedural aspects of the case at [6], [25] and [27]. The only reference to the factual basis of the protection claim is a one line reference in the introductory paragraphs at [4]. Reinforcing the impression of an almost entirely templated decision paragraph [19] states simply ‘(credibility)’. Templated decisions of this kind fall short of the standards expected and undermine confidence in the tribunal decision-making process. Despite the length of the decision, there is no evaluation of the claim put forward to the respondent with reference to the relevant legal framework. Even if the information provided by an appellant was limited, a First-tier Tribunal judge is still obliged to evaluate what evidence there is. In this case, there was a basis of claim outlined in the respondent’s decision letter and copies of the interview records. It was still incumbent on the judge to make adequate findings of fact with reference to the relevant legal framework on the evidence that was before him.
11. For the above reasons, the First-tier Tribunal decision involved the making of an error on a point of law. The decision is set aside.
12. The usual course would be for the Upper Tribunal to remake the decision. However, the wholesale nature of the remaking required, having not received any adequate findings from the First-tier Tribunal, is such that it is likely to be appropriate to remit the case for a fresh hearing before the First-tier Tribunal. However, I have some reservations in doing so given that the appellant has failed to engage with the appeal proceedings on a previous occasion. If the appellant does not attend a further date for a hearing it is likely to waste court time and public funds. Although I would usually leave it for the First-tier Tribunal to make any case management directions, in the circumstances of this particular case, it may assist listing decisions if directions are made at this stage in preparation for remittal.
DIRECTIONS
13. The respondent (SSHD) shall file and serve a copy of the Conclusive Grounds decision to the appellant and the First-tier Tribunal, if one has been made, by no later than 31 July 2026. If no Conclusive Grounds decision has been made the respondent should still notify the appellant and the First-tier Tribunal in writing by the same date.
14. The appellant (Mr FK) must notify the First-tier Tribunal by no later than 07 August 2026 whether he will attend a further hearing in the First-tier Tribunal or whether he wants the appeal to be decided without a hearing.
15. The appeal will be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh hearing, not before First-tier Tribunal Judge C.J.T. Lester.
Notice of Decision
The First-tier Tribunal decision involved the making of an error of law
The case will be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh hearing

M. Canavan
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
14 July 2026