A black background with a black square Description automatically generated with medium confidence
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER |
Case No: UI-2025-000765 |
|
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/60713/2023 LP/08075/2024 |
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 30 th of April 2025
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HIRST
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DAYKIN
Between
SI
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation :
For the Appellant: No appearance
For the Respondent: Mr Nappey, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
Heard at Field House on 15 April 2025
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 either directly or indirectly. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court .
DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant appeals from the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Abebrese dated 5 December 2024 dismissing his protection appeal. Permission to appeal was granted by the First-tier Tribunal on 12 February 2025.
2. The appeal came before us at an error of law hearing on 15 April 2025. The Appellant's representatives had notified the Upper Tribunal on 7 April 2025 that they were no longer acting but there was no appearance by the Appellant. However, at the outset of the hearing Mr Nappey conceded on behalf of the Respondent that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal contained several material errors of law.
3. It is trite that the First-tier Tribunal must give adequate reasons for its decisions. The judge is not required to cite every piece of evidence considered nor to explain every step in his reasoning, but he is required to engage with the evidence before him, resolve any conflicts in the evidence provided by the parties, and give reasons which are sufficient to explain his conclusions on the issues in the appeal.
4. I agree with the parties that the reasoning of the First-tier Tribunal was inadequate in several material respects. In particular:
5. The Respondent invited the Tribunal to remit the case to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing. I consider that the extent of the fact-finding which is required in a rehearing means that it is appropriate to remit the appeal rather than remake the decision in the Upper 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 before a different judge.
L Hirst
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
22 April 2025