Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-003606
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/04734/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

25th August 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HOFFMAN

Between

OT
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Considered on the papers at Field House on 20 August 2026

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.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant appeals, with permission, against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge S. Aziz (“the judge”), promulgated on 17 December 2025, dismissing his asylum appeal.
Anonymity
2. The First-tier Tribunal made an anonymity order in respect of the appellant. There has been no application to set aside that order. While I recognise the strong factors in favour of open justice, in the present case I am satisfied that it is appropriate to continue the anonymity order given that the appellant seeks international protection.
The grounds of appeal
3. The appellant raises a single ground, namely that the First-tier Tribunal acted in a procedurally unfair manner by continuing with the appeal hearing in his absence. According to the appellant, he did not receive the notice of hearing because, on 24 March 2024, the Home Office moved him from his hotel accommodation in Bromsgrove to a new address in Wolverhampton. The appellant explains that he did not update the First-tier Tribunal about his change of address because he erroneously believed that the First-tier Tribunal would have been aware that he had been relocated by the Home Office.
4. Permission to appeal was granted by Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Zucker on 29 July 2026.
The respondent’s Rule 24 response
5. In a Rule 24 response dated 6 August 2026, the respondent accepts that the First-tier Tribunal did make a material error of law by proceeding with the appeal hearing in the appellant’s absence. She therefore asks that the appeal be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal so that the case can be re-heard.
The appellant’s Rule 25 reply
6. On 11 August 2026, the appellant filed a reply to the respondent’s Rule 24 response. In that reply, he agreed with the respondent that the appeal should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard afresh by a different judge.
7. Given that both parties agree on the issue of error of law and on disposal, I am satisfied that the appeal can be determined without a hearing.
Discussion
8. As explained above, the respondent concedes that the First-tier Tribunal acted in a procedurally unfair manner. Although it was the appellant’s responsibility to notify the Tribunal of his change of address, given that he was unrepresented, it is perhaps understandable that he assumed the First-tier Tribunal would be aware that the Home Office had moved him to alternative accommodation. Furthermore, it is clear from [8] that the Tribunal’s records continued to show the appellant as residing at the hotel in Bromsgrove. The respondent was represented by a presenting officer at the hearing, but it appears that no attempt was made to inform the judge of the change of address. In those circumstances, I am satisfied that it was procedurally unfair for the appeal to be heard in the appellant’s absence. That procedural unfairness amounts to a material error of law.
Disposal
9. There is a presumption that an appeal should be retained by the Upper Tribunal unless the proceedings before the First-tier Tribunal were affected by procedural unfairness, or unless the nature or extent of the fact-finding required in order to remake the decision is such as to make remittal appropriate. In the present case, the First-tier Tribunal decision was tainted by procedural unfairness. Accordingly, having regard to paragraph 7.2 of the Practice Statements for the Immigration and Asylum Chambers of the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal, I conclude that the appropriate course is to remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard afresh.
10. Finally, I note that, in his Rule 25 reply, the appellant requests that a Mandinka interpreter be provided for the remitted appeal and that the interpreter attend remotely and not be permitted to see him. However, those requests should be directed to the First-tier Tribunal, which will now resume responsibility for the case management of the appeal.
Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of a material error of law and is set aside. No findings of fact are preserved.
The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal in Birmingham for a fresh hearing before any judge other than Judge S. Aziz.

M R Hoffman

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

20th August 2026