Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-004294
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/51340/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

21st September 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KEBEDE

Between

MS
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

DECISION AND REASONS

1. The appellant, a citizen of Afghanistan, has been given permission to appeal against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Ficklin dismissing his appeal against the respondent’s decision to refuse his asylum and human rights claim.

2. The appellant’s claim was made on the basis of his fear of being killed by the Taliban in Afghanistan because his father worked as a police officer under the previous government. His appeal against the refusal of his claim was dismissed by the First-tier Tribunal in a decision promulgated on 3 July 2026, in which the Tribunal made adverse credibility findings against the appellant.

3. The appellant sought, and was granted, permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on grounds which included assertions of procedural unfairness arising from findings made on matters which were not put to the appellant, speculation and irrational inference in relation to documentary evidence, and a failure properly to consider the evidence.

4. In a Rule 24 response dated 25 August 2026, the Secretary of State accepted that the appellant’s grounds of appeal identified an arguable error of law in the judge’s decision and invited the Upper Tribunal to determine the error of law issue on the papers with a view to remitting the case to the First-tier Tribunal.

5. On 11 September 2026 a Notice and Directions was sent out to the parties, in the following terms:

“In light of the concession made by the respondent and having considered the grant of permission from the First-tier Tribunal, I am minded to set aside the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Ficklin for the reasons set out in the first three grounds of appeal. In view of the fact that the error of law identified involves a matter of procedural fairness, which would have infected the judge’s reasoning across all material issues and would thus necessitate a fresh fact-finding exercise, I am of the view that there should be no preserved findings of fact and the matter ought properly to be remitted for a hearing de novo. I am accordingly minded to remit the case to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing.

Any reasonable objection to this course is to be made in writing to the Upper Tribunal not later than 5 days from the date this decision is sent out. Following that period, and in the absence of any satisfactory response, the Upper Tribunal will proceed as set out at [3] above. “

6. No response to the above has been received from either party.

7. In the circumstances and given the terms of the directions issued to the parties, I assume that neither party has any objection to the course of action I proposed.

8. Accordingly, I set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal promulgated on 3 July 2026 for reason of error of law and remit the case to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing, with no findings preserved.

Notice of Decision

9. The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error on a point of law. The decision is set aside. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be dealt with afresh pursuant to section 12(2)(b)(i) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and Practice Statement 7.2(b).

S Kebede
Upper Tribunal Judge Kebede

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber