Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-003174
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/66066/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

29th October 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CANAVAN

Between

H Z
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant appealed the respondent’s decision to refuse a protection and human rights claim.
2. First-tier Tribunal Judge Balroop dismissed the appeal in a decision sent on 27 March 2026.
3. The appellant was initially refused permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal by a judge of the First-tier Tribunal. More detailed grounds of appeal were sent with the application for permission to appeal made directly to the Upper Tribunal.
4. A judge of the Upper Tribunal granted permission to appeal in an order sent on 20 July 2026. The judge found that it was ‘arguable that the judge has erred by making a speculative finding at [21]; mischaracterising the appellant’s defence at trial; failing to take into account background evidence; failing to give reasons for rejecting the medical evidence; and making a mistake of fact as to whether the appellant mentioned the Muslim Brotherhood in his witness statement.’.
5. The respondent filed a rule 24 response on 1 September 2026. The response stated that the respondent did not oppose the appellant’s application for permission to appeal for the reasons given in the grant of permission and after consideration of the evidence that was before the Tribunal. The Upper Tribunal was invited to remit the case for a fresh hearing in the First-tier Tribunal.
ERROR OF LAW
6. Having reviewed the First-tier Tribunal decision, the grounds of appeal, the grant of permission, and having considered the respondent’s rule 24 response, it is my preliminary view that the First-tier Tribunal decision involved the making of an error of law for the reasons outlined in the Upper Tribunal’s grant of permission. 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. Given that the errors go to the credibility of the appellant’s claim, it is appropriate, subject to the directions made below, to remit the case for a fresh hearing in the First-tier Tribunal.
DIRECTIONS
7. If a party objects to the proposed course of action they must file and serve written submissions to the Upper Tribunal no later than 14 days from the date this decision is sent.
8. If there is no objection to the decision being made without a hearing by that time, this error of law decision will come into effect.
9. If there is no objection to the decision being made without a hearing by that time, the case will be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh hearing.
Notice of Decision
Subject to the directions given above, the First-tier Tribunal decision involved the making of an error of law
Subject to the directions given above, the appeal will be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal

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

14 September 2026