UI-2026-003835

  • Case title:  
  • Appellant name:
  • Status of case: Unreported
  • Hearing date:
  • Promulgation date:
  • Publication date:
  • Last updated on:
  • Country:
  • Judges:

The decision



Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: UI-2026-003835
HU/52175/2024


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


B E T W E E N:

BILLEL ARARI
(Anonymity Direction Not Made)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent


_________________________

DECISION
_________________________


BEFORE UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MANDALIA, THE PRINCIPAL RESIDENT JUDGE
WHEREAS the appellant’s appeal against the respondent’s decision dated 21 February 2024 to refuse his human rights was dismissed by the First-tier Tribunal (“FtT”) for reasons set out in the decision of FtT Judge Parkes dated 14 May 2026.
AND UPON the appellant having been granted permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on all grounds by Upper Tribunal Judge Neville on 5 August 2026.
AND UPON the respondent having filed a response under Rule 24 of The Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (“the Upper Tribunal Rules”) dated 26 August 2026 in which the respondent accepts that the decision of the FtT is infected by a material error of law.
AND UPON the appellant’s representatives having filed a position statement dated 11 September 2026 confirming the appellant does not object to the appeal being determined on the papers without an oral hearing and inviting the Upper Tribunal to allow the appeal on the error of law issue, set aside the decision of the FtT without preserving any findings of fact, and to remit the appeal to the FtT to be heard de novo before a judge other than First-tier Tribunal Judge Parkes.
AND UPON the respondent having filed a position statement dated 15 September 2026 confirming that the respondent does not oppose the error of law appeal being allowed on the papers and that the appeal should be remitted for a de novo hearing in the FtT.
AND UPON the Upper Tribunal having had regard to Rule 34 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, and the views expressed by the parties, and determining that the Upper Tribunal should make a decision on the appeal without a hearing.
AND UPON the Tribunal being satisfied that the decision of the FtT is vitiated by a material error of law for the reasons set out in the Grounds of Appeal read alongside the decision of the Upper Tribunal to grant permission to appeal.
AND UPON the Tribunal having had regard to the the Court of Appeal’s decision in AEB v SSHD [2022] EWCA Civ 1512, Begum (Remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 00046 (IAC) and §7.2 of the Senior President’s Practice Statements. 
AND UPON the Tribunal having regard to the nature of the error of law, and accepting that in fairness to the appellant, the appropriate course is for the appeal to be remitted for rehearing before the FtT. 

IT IS DIRECTED THAT:
1. The decision of FtT Judge Parkes dated 15 May 2026 is set aside with no findings preserved.
2. The appeal is remitted to the FtT for hearing de novo before a judge of the FtT other than Judge Parkes.
3. The parties will be notified of any further directions made by the FtT and or the date for the hearing of the appeal.

V. Mandalia
Upper Tribunal Judge Mandalia
24 September 2026