Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-003930
UI-2026-003931

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/56759/2025
PA/77503/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

28th October 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WILSON

Between

D G (First Appellant)
GG (Second Appellant)

(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellants
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellants: Ms S Panagiotopoulou (Counsel)
For the Respondent: Mr Ojo (Senior Home Office Presenting Officer)

Heard at Field House on 9 October 2026

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 against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Rawcliffe promulgated on 20 April 2026 dismissing their appeals against the Respondent's refusal of their protection claims.
2. Permission to appeal was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge McWilliam on 13 August 2026. In granting permission, Judge McWilliam stated that it was arguable that the Judge had not applied the correct test set out in JCK (s.32 NABA 2022) (Botswana) [2024] UKUT 00100 (IAC). Permission was granted on all grounds.
3. At the outset of the hearing, Mr Ojo on behalf of the Respondent, conceded the appeal on all grounds. Mr Ojo accepted that the First-tier Tribunal's decision involved the making of material errors of law and could not safely stand.
4. I am satisfied that the Respondent's concession was properly made. Having considered the grounds of appeal, the decision of the First-tier Tribunal and the grant of permission, I am satisfied that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of material errors of law. In those circumstances, the decision must be set aside in its entirety.
5. I have considered Begum (Remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 46 (IAC) together with the Senior President's Practice Statements. Both representatives agreed that the appropriate course was for these linked appeals to be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh hearing. I agree. Given the nature of the errors identified and the extent of the factual issues that will require reconsideration a full fact-finding exercise will be necessary. In these circumstances, remittal to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing is the appropriate course.
Notice of Decision
6. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal contained material errors of law and is set aside. No findings of fact are preserved.
7. The appeals shall be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard de novo by a different judge.

G Wilson

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

27 October 2026