Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-003308
First-tier Tribunal No:
HU/60200/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 23rd of September 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RUDDICK

Between

Nguessan Mirelle Brou
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Appeal Determined without a hearing pursuant to Rule 34
of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008

DECISION AND REASONS
1. On 8 July 2026, the Upper Tribunal granted the appellant permission to appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (“FtT”) to dismiss her appeal against the respondent’s refusal of her human rights claim.
2. The appellant’s appeal was listed for hearing before the FtT on 6 January 2026 and was dismissed in a decision dated 5 February 2026. At [8] of the challenged decision, the FtT recorded the following:
“The appellant was not present at the hearing. Prior to proceeding, I confirmed that the hearing notice had been served to the appellant on 13 May 2025. Additionally, I requested that the Usher attempt to establish telephone contact with the appellant; however, these efforts proved unsuccessful. Having satisfied myself that the appellant had been properly notified of the hearing, I decided to continue with the proceedings in her absence. I was also aware that there was no documentation uploaded by the appellant which further suggested that she had no intention to attend the hearing.”
3. The FtT then dismissed the appeal.
4. The appellant appeals on the grounds that she was never informed by her solicitors of the appeal hearing before the FtT, nor did they prepare and lodge her appeal evidence.
5. In support of her application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, the appellant has submitted the following documents:
(i) A client care letter from MSD Solicitors, dated 5 August 2024, confirming that they had been instructed to represent her in her appeal to the FtT, including drafting witness statements and a skeleton argument and preparing the appeal bundle, for a fee of £1,500;
(ii) Evidence of payment to the solicitors of £1,940 between August and September 2024;
(iii) A call log, showing her outgoing calls to MSD Solicitors on 14 August 2024, 4 September 2024, 30 September 2025, 3 October 2025, 5 November 2025, 6 November 2025, 5 December 2025, 24 December 2025, 12 February 2026, 13 February 2026, 20 February 2026, 4 March 2026, 11 March 2026, and 12 March 2026. On some days, there are multiple calls. There is only one incoming call, a missed call on 13 February 2026, which the appellant returned;
(iv) An email from the appellant to MSD Solicitors, dated 12 March 2026, complaining that she had not been told about the hearing. She also wrote that she had called them several times between November 2025 and March 2026 to get information about the hearing and was told the case worker would call her back, which he had never done;
(v) An email from MSD Solicitors of 13 March 2026, confirming receipt of the complaint and promising an investigation; and
(vi) A letter from MSD Solicitors dated 6 May 2026. This sets out the findings of their investigation:
a. The appeal to the FtT was lodged on 14 August 2026;
b. They were unable to confirm whether the appellant had ever been sent a copy of the hearing notice because “[t]he caseworker who had conduct of your matter at that time had left our firm a while back and I have been unable to access his emails to verify any further information pertaining to your appeal matter.”;
c. The appeal determination dated 5 February 2026 was sent to the appellant by email on 12 March 2026; and
d. “[I]t is quite apparent that there are several aspects of our service to you that did not meet our expected standards of professionalism.”
6. Although the firm does not expressly acknowledge that they took no steps to prepare the appellant’s appeal evidence and failed to notify her of the appeal hearing, neither do they suggest that did so. This clearly suggests that there is no record of any work done on her behalf. They do admit that they did not keep any independent records of their case worker’s email correspondence with her (or of any work her may have done), which is a serious failing. Moreover, the appellant’s call logs show numerous calls out from her to the firm, but only one missed call from the firm to her. This corroborates her account. It is somewhat mystifying why under these circumstances MSD Solicitors offered the appellant a partial refund of only £500, but that is a matter between her and MSD Solicitors (and perhaps appropriate regulatory bodies).
7. On 20 July 2026, the respondent filed a Rule 24 response. She said that she accepted that the FtT had “putatively” erred on a point of law and submitted that the appeal should be determined on the papers, without a hearing before the Upper Tribunal.
8. I take it from the respondent’s Rule 24 response that they do not doubt the genuineness of any of the evidence on which the appellant relies.
9. On the basis of the evidence before me, I find that it is more likely than not that the appellant took reasonable steps to pursue her appeal but her former solicitors failed to prepare her appeal evidence or inform her of the date of her FtT hearing. The FtT judge who heard her appeal will not have been aware of this, but I consider that it is in the interests of justice to set aside the FtT’s determination.
10. Taking into account the guidance set out in Majera v SSHD [2025] EWCA Civ 159, Begum (Remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 00046 (IAC) and AEB v SSHD [2022] EWCA Civ 1512, as well as the Practice Statement of 11 June 2018, and I consider that remittal to the FtT is appropriate in this case given the extensive fact-finding required and that the appellant was denied a fair hearing before the FtT.

Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 5 February 2026 is set aside in its entirety and the appeal is remitted to the First-tier tribunal for a fresh hearing on all issues, before any other judge.

E. Ruddick

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

22 September 2026