Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-003944
First-tier Tribunal No: HU/50758/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

15th October 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GIBBS

Between

IMRAN MALIK
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr. Hashmi, Counsel instructed by Adam Bernard Solicitors Ltd.
For the Respondent: Mr. Tufan, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 7 October 2026

DECISION AND REASONS
1. This is an appeal brought by the appellant against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Thorne (the Judge) to dismiss the appellant’s appeal against a decision made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department refusing his human rights application.
Background
2. The appellant is a citizen of Pakistan. He entered the United Kingdom (UK) with a valid visit visa on 1 June 2014. Thereafter the appellant remained in the UK as an overstayer. He made various unsuccessful applications to regularise his stay. The most recent application is dated 23 May 2022 and was made on the grounds of the appellant’s ill health.
3. This application was refused in a decision dated 11 April 2023. The respondent was not satisfied that the appellant would face very significant obstacles to integration in Pakistan. Further, the respondent concluded that whilst the health care systems in Pakistan are unlikely to be the equivalent of the UK this in itself does not entitle the appellant to remain here. The respondent is satisfied that suitable medical treatment is available in the appellant’s home country and that this would be accessible to the appellant.
4. The Judge dismissed the appellant’s appeal. Although the Judge accepted the appellant’s health problems they were not persuaded that he is a seriously ill person or that necessary medical treatment would not be available or accessible to him in Pakistan. The Judge was satisfied that the decision to remove the appellant is proportionate.
Grounds of Appeal
5. The Grounds of Appeal are twofold.
6. Ground 1 asserts that the Judge made an error of law in their assessment of the appeal under Article 3 ECHR. This is because the appellant’s medical conditions were not in dispute and yet the Judge concluded that he is not a seriously ill person. Also that the Judge erred by disregarding the appellant’s evidence that he cannot afford treatment in Pakistan. Also that the Judge failed to adequately address the country background information regarding the availability of treatment.
7. Ground 2 asserts that the Judge made an error of law in their assessment of the appeal under Article 8 ECHR. This is because the Judge failed to give adequate weight to relevant factors when considering very significant obstacles.
Grant of Permission
8. First-tier Tribunal Judge Sills granted permission to appeal in a decision dated 17 July 2026.
9. Permission was granted in the basis that it was arguable that the Judge had given inadequate reasons for dismissing the appeal on Article 3 and Article 8 ECHR grounds. He also found that “The finding that the Appellant is not seriously ill is difficult to reconcile with the Judge’s statement that the “Appellant has long standing and serious cardiac disease.”
10. The respondent did not file a rule 24 response to the appeal. Mr. Tufan submitted that there had been a clerical error and that a response had been prepared and the appeal was opposed.
11. At the error of law hearing I heard oral submissions from both parties. I address any submissions of significance in the discussion section below.
Discussion
12. I remind myself of the need for appropriate judicial restraint before interfering with a decision of the First-tier Tribunal, particularly where the fact-finding Judge has considered evidence from a variety of sources and has undertaken an evaluation of it, set in the applicable legal framework. I also remind myself that no decision will be perfect, that such decisions must be read holistically and sensibly, and that there is no requirement to give reasons for reasons.
Ground 1 – Article 3 ECHR
13. Neither the Judge nor the respondent challenged the veracity of the appellant’s medical conditions:
“12….the Appellant has long-standing and serious cardiac disease, including dilated cardiomyopathy, severe aortic regurgitation, mitral regurgitation, heart failure and hypertension for which he underwent a mechanical aortic valve replacement in June 2021.
14. Further the Judge did not dispute the treatment required by the appellant:
“13. Since surgery he has required ongoing specialist cardiology follow-up, lifelong anticoagulation with warfarin and regular INR monitoring, and continued cardiac medication consistent with chronic heart failure management. The records demonstrate that his condition has not resolved following surgery and remains complex and requiring sustained medical oversight, with persistent symptoms necessitating review and medication adjustment. In addition, NHS mental health records document clinically and significant anxiety and depressive symptoms, particularly in the context of his cardiac illness and recovery, for which he has engaged with psychological therapies; risk assessments note distress and passive thoughts but no active suicidal intent with agreed safety planning.”
15. The Judge correctly refers to AM (Article 3, health cases) Zimbabwe [2022] UKUT 131 (IAC), and what the appellant must establish: that they are a seriously ill person and adduce evidence capable of demonstrating that substantial grounds have been shown for believing that as a seriously ill person they would face a real risk, on account of the absence of appropriate treatment or the lack of access to such treatment, of being exposed to a serious, rapid and irreversible decline in their state of health resulting in intense suffering, or to a significant reduction in life expectancy [18].
16. The Judge’s reasons for concluding that the appellant is not a seriously ill person can be found at [19]. It appears, but is not clear in my view, that the Judge’s conclusion that the appellant is not a seriously ill person is because his conditions “are being managed appropriately” . They do not however provide any detail as to how the treatment is effecting the appellant’s health nor how this treatment leads to the conclusion that he is not seriously ill in light of the medical evidence and his diagnoses. Further, I find that there was medical evidence before the Judge from the appellant’s GP (p.35 of the Composite Bundle) in which there is reference to ongoing instability in the appellant’s blood thickness levels.
17. The lack of reasons is a significant omission by the Judge. Further, I am satisfied that this error is compounded by their treatment of the second limb in AM (the availability of appropriate treatment / the appellant’s ability to access such). I find that the Judge failed to make clear what treatments they found the appellant required and to then consider the availability of each treatment as well as the appellant’s ability to access to this (because the appellant said he could not afford treatment in Pakistan).
18. The lack of adequate reasons amounts to an error of law. Given that the findings concern both whether the appellant is a seriously ill person and whether necessary treatment would be available and accessible on return, I am satisfied that the error is material to the outcome of the appeal.
19. Given these conclusions it is not necessary for me to consider the other grounds.
Notice of Decision
20. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of a material error of law and that decision is set aside in its entirety.
21. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal (Virtual Region) for a rehearing before any Judge other than First-tier Tribunal Judge Thorne.

L K Gibbs
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
13 October 2026