UI-2026-003123

  • Case title:  
  • Appellant name:
  • Status of case: Unreported
  • Hearing date:
  • Promulgation date:
  • Publication date:
  • Last updated on:
  • Country:
  • Judges:

The decision



IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-003123
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/74299/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Directions Issued:

31st July 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RASTOGI

Between

AAH
(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 appellant appeals against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Rea (“the Judge”) dated 6 April 2026 (“the Decision”) dismissing the appellant’s appeal against the respondent’s refusal of his protection claim.

2. A judge of the First-tier Tribunal granted the appellant permission to appeal. By way of a Rule 24 notice dated 7 July 2026 the respondent concedes that the judge made a material error of law in finding that the appellant’s claim of clan-based discrimination is not supported by MOJ and Ors (Return to Mogadishu) CG [2014] UKUT 442 (IAC) and OA (Somalia) CG [2022] UKUT 33 (IAC) and by failing to consider the evidence contained in the respondent’s CPIN Mogadishu: Al-Shabaab and the security situation, Somalia, July 2025 at page 13 to which the judge was directed as to the exclusion and discrimination faced by minority clan members in Mogadishu. The respondent accepts this error infected the findings as to the appellant’s credibility such that the entire decision should be set aside and the appeal remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing.

3. Unless the appellant objects within 7 days of the date this decision is sent to him, I find an error of law in the judge’s decision in accordance with the respondent’s concession and 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 together with the extent of the preserved findings, the appropriate venue for remaking the appeal is the First-tier Tribunal and the following directions will apply.

Notice of Decision

The Decision of Judge Rea contained an error of law.

The decision is set aside with no preserved findings.

The appellant’s appeal is 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

Directions

1. If the appellant objects to the appeal being disposed of in the above way, he is to notify the Upper Tribunal within 7 days of this decision being sent to him.