Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-004565

First-tier Tribunal No: HU/70013/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 12 October 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WEBB

Between

MR ODIANISEN AYERE
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Representing himself
For the Respondent: Mr S Walker (Senior Presenting Officer)

Heard at Field House on 9 October 2026

DECISION AND REASONS

1. This is an appeal by the appellant against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal Judge (the Judge), promulgated on 28 April 2026, refusing his appeal. The decision was made following an oral hearing on 22 April 2026. Permission to appeal was granted on all grounds by a different First-tier Tribunal Judge on 13 August 2026.

The hearing

2. I had before me a 217-page bundle that contained the decision being appealed, grounds of appeal, decision on permission, and all the documents that were before the First-tier Tribunal.

3. I set out my understanding of the specific grounds argued by the appellant and he agreed with my assessment.

4. I heard arguments from the appellant and Mr Walker in relation to the grounds of appeal. The grounds were addressed by Mr Walker in turn allowing the appellant to deal with the respondent’s arguments on each ground.

5. At the end of the hearing the appellant confirmed that he had nothing else that he wanted to add to the grounds or arguments he made before me.

6. After hearing what both parties wanted to tell me, I confirmed that I would not be able to give my decision at the hearing. I now give my decision in writing.

Errors of law

7. When assessing if there have been errors of law the starting position is that I should exercise judicial restraint before interfering with a decision of a Judge of the First-tier Tribunal, as explained by the higher courts on many occasions.

Ground 1

8. Ground 1 argues that the Judge failed to fully recognise that all parts of Nigeria are insecure for the appellant and failed to consider that he has no friends or family in Nigeria.

9. Mr Walker’s submissions were that Nigeria is a large country and that the findings of the Judge were open to them on the evidence provided.

10. In his arguments the appellant repeated that the country would not be safe for him and he had no family.

11. The Judge found that not all areas of Nigeria are dangerous in paragraph 21 of the decision. There was no country information before the Judge that could show all of Nigeria was dangerous. The ground is a disagreement with the finding of the Judge that was open to them. The ground does not show an error of law.

12. The Judge also found in paragraph 22 that even if the appellant had no family support, he would be able to establish himself in Nigeria. Contrary to the appellant’s arguments, the Judge did take into account that he had no family in Nigeria, even if it was in the alternative. The grounds are a disagreement with that finding and do not show an error of law.

13. I find the ground does not demonstrate an error of law.

Ground 2

14. Ground 2 argues that the appellant’s younger siblings are qualifying children and that the Tribunal failed to consider that the appellant was helping to take them to school before his imprisonment when assessing whether there is a parental relationship.

15. Mr Walker conceded that the Judge made an error of law but argued that it was not material because the Judge found there was no parental relationship.

16. In response the appellant argued that he had a role in the children’s lives before his imprisonment and still continued having a role in their lives.

17. Even where a Judge makes an error of law, it must be capable of affecting the final outcome of the decision before an appeal can be allowed: it must be a material error of law.

18. The Judge found that there was no parental relationship between the appellant and his siblings. The Judge took into account the help provided by the appellant before his imprisonment and also concluded that there was a continued relationship. The Judge concluded in paragraph 36 that there was a close relationship.

19. However, it was open to the Judge on the evidence before them to find that the relationship was not a parental one. Although there was an error of law with regard the status of the children, it was not material in light of that finding.

20. The ground does not demonstrate a material error of law.

Ground 3

21. Ground 3 argues that when assessing the appellant’s circumstances, the Judge failed to place any weight on the letter from the appellant's father about the relationship they have and the relationship between the appellant and his minor siblings.

22. In arguing this ground, the appellant places weight on the up-to-date GP records to show that there were elements of dependency because of his father’s mobility issues. As I explained to the appellant it was not an error of law for the Judge to not take account of that evidence as it was only provided with the appeal grounds.

23. The Judge took account of the letter from the appellant’s father in paragraph 30 of the determination. The Judge found that family life did not exist between the appellant and his father but did find there was a family life between the appellant and his minor siblings in paragraph 50 of the decision. That was a finding open to him on the evidence.

24. Even though it was not before the Judge I have considered the new medical evidence. Although it supports the claimed mobility difficulties it does not show that they are so severe that there would be additional elements of dependency between the appellant and his father, even when combined with the evidence before the Judge. Even if the evidence had been before the Judge, it would not have made a difference to the outcome.

25. The ground does not show a material error of law.

Ground 4

26. Ground 4 argues that the Judge erred in the finding that the appellant's adult siblings could care for his father if he were returned to Nigeria.

27. In his argument before me the appellant said that his adult siblings were not able to help as they are married and have their own families.

28. The Judge took into account the letters from the appellant’s adult siblings in paragraph 31 of the decision and considered that they are married and have their own families. The Judge concluded that this alone did not show that any support required by the appellant’s father could not be provided by them.

29. Those findings were open to the Judge on the evidence before them. The ground is a disagreement with that finding and does not disclose a material error of law.

Conclusion on errors of law

30. I find for the reasons set out above that the decision of the Judge did not contain any material errors of law.

Notice of decision

31. The decision of the Judge promulgated on 28 April 2026 does not contain material errors of law.

32. This appeal is dismissed on all grounds, and the decision of the First-tier Tribunal stands.

N Webb

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
09 October 2026