Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-003534
UI-2026-003535
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/61674/2023
PA/63109/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 23 September 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LOUGHRAN

Between

MM
YB
(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 appellants are granted anonymity.

No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the appellants, likely to lead members of the public to identify the appellants.
Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS

1. The appellants appeal with permission against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing their appeal against the refusal of their protection and human rights claims.

2. The First-tier Tribunal granted the appellants permission to appeal because it was arguable that inadequate reasons were given for the adverse credibility assessment.

3. The matter was listed for an error of law hearing on 24 September 2026.

4. On 15 September 2026, the appellants representatives wrote to the Upper Tribunal, enclosing the respondent’s response to the grounds of appeal under the Rule 24 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (Rule 24 response). The response was dated 22 July 2026 and it stated the following:

‘The respondent concedes the appeal. It is accepted that the FTTJ’s findings at [16] fall short in respect of credibility findings. It is not enough to state “I have not found the appellants accounts to be credible” without giving reasons for doing so. There is inadequate reasoning and this constitutes an error.’

5. The respondent submitted that the appeal be set aside and returned de novo to the First tier Tribunal to be heard again.

6. In the representations dated 15 September 2026, the appellants’ representatives confirmed that the appellants agreed with the respondent’s proposed course of action and that there was therefore no need for the error of law hearing on 24 September 2026.

7. There is no record of the respondent having filed her Rule 24 response at the Upper Tribunal. Accordingly, the Upper Tribunal contacted the respondent to confirm her current position.

8. In an email dated 22 September 2026, the respondent (via a Senior Home Office Presenting Officer) confirmed that the respondent had conceded the error of law. The respondent agreed that there was no need for an error of law hearing and that the manner can be disposed of on the papers by setting the decision of the First-tier Tribunal aside and remitting it back to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing.

9. On this basis I am satisfied that that this issue can be fairly determined on the papers without an oral hearing. I am satisfied that the First tier Tribunal Judge materially erred in law by failing to give adequate reasons for finding the appellants accounts not to be credible. I am also satisfied that the First tier Tribunal decision should be set aside with no findings of fact preserved and remitted to the First tier Tribunal.

Notice of Decision

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

2. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside in its entirety with no findings preserved.

3. The decision is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing before a different judge.

4. Anonymity is continued.

G. Loughran

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

22 September 2026