Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-003120
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/59036/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 24 July 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CANAVAN

Between

N T
(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 was granted anonymity because the case involved a protection claim and the consideration of the welfare of young children. 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 (NT) appealed the respondent’s decision to refuse her protection and human rights claim.

2. First-tier Tribunal Judge Gillespie dismissed the appeal in a decision sent on 31 March 2026.

3. The appellant applied for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on the ground that the judge erred in dismissing the appeal when the respondent made a concession in relation to Article 8 at the hearing and the judge had indicated that the appeal would be allowed.

4. First-tier Tribunal Judge Horton granted permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal in an order sent on 12 June 2026.

5. The respondent filed a rule 24 response on 07 July 2026 stating that she did not oppose the appeal. The respondent confirmed that a concession was made at the hearing before the First-tier Tribunal. The respondent urged the Upper Tribunal to find that the decision dismissing the appeal with reference to Article 8 should be set aside and remade allowing the appeal.

6. 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.

Decision and reasons

7. At the hearing before the First-tier Tribunal on 19 December 2025, the appellant’s representative confirmed that she was not pursuing her protection claim. The respondent conceded that removal of the appellant would be unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 due to the appellant’s family life with a British child in the UK.

8. In such circumstances, it is unclear how the First-tier Tribunal came to dismiss the appeal on human rights grounds. Nor is it clear why submissions were recorded at [9]-[13] of the decision when the recording of the hearing uploaded onto MyHMCTS shows that no formal submissions were made. The recording makes clear that a concession was made by the Presenting Officer at the beginning of the hearing following consultation with a senior caseworker. The Presenting Officer explained the basis upon which the concession was made. After further discussion, the judge indicated that the appeal would be allowed. It is unclear whether the delay in promulgating the decision might have affected the judge’s recollection of the discussion that took place at the hearing. Despite a clear concession, the judge proceeded to dismiss the human rights appeal in the decision sent on 31 March 2026.

9. The respondent confirms in the rule 24 response that a concession was and is made in relation to the human rights aspect of the appeal. For this reason, the First-tier Tribunal decision involved the making of an error of law. The decision is set aside and is remade and allowed on human rights grounds.

Notice of Decision

The First-tier Tribunal decision involved the making of an error of law

The decision relating to the human rights claim is set aside

The decision is remade and the appeal is ALLOWED on human rights grounds

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

15 July 2026