UI-2026-005212

  • Case title:  
  • Appellant name:
  • Status of case: Unreported
  • Hearing date:
  • Promulgation date:
  • Publication date:
  • Last updated on:
  • Country:
  • Judges:

The decision



IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-005212
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/67729/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 20th of October 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HIRST

Between

AB
(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. 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 26 June 2026 dismissing his appeal on protection grounds. I have made this decision without a hearing.
2. The Appellant appeals on seven overlapping grounds including that the First-tier Tribunal judge misdirected themselves as to the burden of proof, relied on matters which were speculative, wrongly relied on immaterial inconsistencies, failed to engage with the accepted country evidence on minority clan risk, made unsupported findings and failed to give adequate reasons for concluding that internal relocation was available.
3. On 7 October 2026 the Respondent filed a response to the notice of appeal under Rule 24 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008. The Respondent accepts that the First-tier Tribunal materially erred by failing to explain how the inconsistencies in the Appellant’s evidence undermined his core claim, failing to undertake a holistic credibility assessment and failing to apply relevant country guidance case law to the Appellant’s circumstances.
4. I am satisfied that the First-tier Tribunal’s decision did involve the making of an error of law as the Respondent concedes, and I therefore set the decision aside.
5. Both parties are agreed that the appropriate course is for the appeal to be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for de novo hearing before a different judge with no findings preserved. Having had regard to paragraph 7 of the Practice Statement and the guidance in AEB [2022] EWCA Civ 1512, I consider that it is appropriate for the appeal to be remitted.

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