Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: UI-2026-003743
PA/04925/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decided without a hearing Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 28 September 2026
On 1st of October 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE OWENS

Between

NA
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

DECISION MADE PURSUANT TO RULE 34 OF THE
TRIBUNAL PROCEDURE (UPPER TRIBUNAL) RULES 2008

1. Having conceded the appeal, the respondent has invited the Tribunal to determine the appeal without a hearing in accordance with rule 34(1) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008. I am satisfied that both parties consent to the appeal being determined without a hearing and for that reason that it is fair and in the interests of justice to determine the appeal in this manner.

2. The appellant appeals with permission against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 24 April 2026.

3. In the rule 24 response prepared by the respondent on 25 August 2026, it is conceded by the respondent that at a Case Management Review Hearing on 3 November 2025 it was agreed that a further CMR hearing would take place before the substantive hearing. Reasonable adjustments (called “procedural safeguards” in the grounds) were also put in place to assist the appellant prepare his case including assistance to prepare his court bundle. Instead the hearing was listed for a substantive hearing.

4. The respondent therefore concedes that the unrepresented appellant was not prepared for the substantive hearing on 21 April 2026. It is conceded by the respondent that as a result the judge’s decision is unsafe on the basis of procedural unfairness and should be set aside in its entirety. The appellant is in agreement with this course of action. Having had regard to the grounds of appeal, the grant of permission and the rule 24 and 25 responses, I am in agreement that the decision is vitiated by procedural unfairness and should be set aside.

5. The respondent invites the Upper Tribunal to remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard de novo. The appellant consents to this course of action, citing AEB v SSHD [2022] EWCA Civ 1512 at [16]-[17], endorsing MM (unfairness) Sudan v SSHD [2014] UKUT 105 (IAC) at [26], that remittal will ordinarily follow where an error of law has deprived a party of a fair hearing; a different course requires cogent and adequately expressed reasons. I am in agreement that it is in the interests of justice to remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal for re-hearing.

Notice of Decision

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

7. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside in its entirety.

8. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard de novo before a judge other than First-tier Tribunal Judge Cary.

9. It would be appropriate for the First-tier Tribunal to have a CMR hearing prior to listing the appeal for a substantive hearing.

Signed Date: 28 September 2026

R J Owens
Upper Tribunal Judge Owens