Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-004759
First-tier Tribunal No: HU/62070/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 20 October 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HIRST

Between

AP
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

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 or members of the Appellant’s family. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant appeals from the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 15 June 2026 dismissing his appeal on protection grounds. Permission to appeal was granted by the First-tier Tribunal on 1 September 2026. This decision has been made without a hearing.
2. The Appellant relies on five grounds of appeal:
a. Ground 1: The First-tier Tribunal judge did not take into account the witness evidence of AW and LW (the sponsor’s father and mother), or alternatively did not provide any reasons for rejecting that evidence or giving little weight to it;
b. Ground 2: The judge did not take into account corroborative evidence of the relationship between the Appellant and the sponsor, or did not provide reasons for rejecting that evidence or giving little weight to it;
c. Ground 3: The judge unfairly and irrationally concluded that NW had dishonestly sought to avoid cross-examination, and in so doing relied on a record of the hearing which was incorrect;
d. Ground 4: The judge acted irrationally in placing adverse weight to the evidence about wedding photographs, having indicated during the hearing that she did not consider it material to her decision;
e. Ground 5: the judge’s reasoning in relation to the sponsor’s text message about her marriage to the Appellant was irrational.
3. The Appellant’s grounds of appeal made a number of significant criticisms of the judge’s conduct of the hearing and the judge’s approach to the oral and written evidence. On 1 October 2026 UTJ Neville issued case management directions requiring the Respondent to file a response under Rule 24 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 if she disputed the assertions made in the grounds of appeal about the conduct of the First-tier Tribunal hearing.
4. On 7 October 2026 the Respondent filed a Rule 24 response. The Respondent did not dispute any of the assertions in the grounds of appeal; she accepted that the First-tier Tribunal had materially erred on a point of law and that the decision should be set aside.
5. Having reviewed the grounds of appeal and the decision of the First-tier Tribunal, I am satisfied that the decision involved material errors of law. In particular, and on the basis of the undisputed assertions about the conduct of the hearing set out in the grounds of appeal, I am satisfied that the judge’s conduct of the hearing was both procedurally and substantively unfair. The judge’s determination did not deal adequately or at all with the evidence of AW and LW, nor with the supporting evidence of the relationship between the Appellant and sponsor. The reasons given by the judge in her very brief decision did not adequately explain how she had reached her conclusions nor the approach she had taken to the Appellant’s evidence. The judge’s conduct of the hearing did not give the sponsor a fair opportunity to give evidence and was liable to give an objective and fair-minded observer the impression that the judge was not approaching the appeal impartially and with an open mind. I therefore set the decision of the First-tier Tribunal aside.
6. The Respondent’s Rule 24 response asserts that the appeal should be reheard in the Upper Tribunal. However, having had regard to paragraph 7 of the Practice Statement and the guidance in AEB [2022] EWCA Civ 1512 and Begum [2023] UKUT 46 (IAC), I consider that the Appellant has been effectively deprived of a fair hearing at first instance, and it is appropriate for the appeal to be remitted for a de novo hearing in the First-tier Tribunal.
Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of a material error of law and is set aside.
The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for rehearing de novo before a different judge with no findings preserved.

L Hirst

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

19 October 2026