Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-004118
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/72319/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 20th of October 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LOUGHRAN

Between

NN
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: No attendance
For the Respondent: Ms S Mackenzie

Heard at Field House on 19 October 2026 (via Cloud Video Platform)

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, a national of Afghanistan, appeals with the permission of the First tier Tribunal against a decision of the First tier Tribunal dismissing his appeal against the refusal of his protection and human rights claim.
2. The respondent provided a response under the rule 24 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, in which she confirmed that the respondent did not oppose the appellant’s application for permission to appeal and invited the Tribunal to find an error in the decision of the First tier Tribunal and remit the appeal de novo to the First-Tier Tribunal.
3. The appellant was represented before the First tier Tribunal and when he applied for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal. On 14 October 2026 at 19:38 the appellant emailed the Tribunal explaining that his former representatives were no longer acting for him and asking for assistance to get legal representation. The Tribunal replied on 18 October 2026 at 19:36 informing the appellant that the Tribunal is unable to assist with legal representation. The Tribunal provided the details of organisations who may be able to assist. The appellant replied on 18 October 2026 at 22:42. The appellant explained that he did not have the CVP link, he did not have the funds to pay for a legal representative and that he needed an interpreter. He did not ask for the hearing to be adjourned.
4. On the morning of 19 October 2026, the appellant did not sign into the CVP link. The court clerk telephoned the appellant and re-sent the appellant the CVP link. The appellant did not answer the telephone calls and it went straight through to voicemail. I am satisfied that the appellant was aware of the hearing and had been provided with the CVP link to join the hearing.
5. Ms Mackenzie confirmed that it was still the respondent’s position that the appellant’s appeal was not opposed. In those circumstances I satisfied that it was in the interests of justice to proceed with the appeal in the appellant’s absence.
6. Ms Mackenzie confirmed that the respondent accepted that the First-tier Tribunal had acted with procedural unfairness by holding it against the appellant that he had not provided any documentary evidence of his father’s employment when this was matter that had not been raised by the respondent prior to the hearing and the First-tier Tribunal did not raise it as an issue during the hearing.
7. I am satisfied that this concession was rightly made and that the First-tier Tribunal’s decision should be set aside because it was procedurally unfair.
8. Having applied the guidance in paragraph 7 of the Senior President’s Practice Statement I am satisfied that because I have found that the First-tier Tribunal’s decision was procedurally unfair the appeal should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be re-heard by a different judge. Ms Mackenzie agreed.
Notice of Decision
(1) There is an error of law in the decision of the First-tier Tribunal. Accordingly the decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside.
(2) The decision will be remitted to the First tier Tribunal to be heard by a different judge.
(3) No findings of fact are preserved.

G. Loughran
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

19 October 2026