BAILII
British and Irish Legal Information Institute


Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments >> UI2025000765 [2025] UKAITUR UI2025000765 (30 April 2025)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2025/UI2025000765.html
Cite as: [2025] UKAITUR UI2025000765

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

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:

    1. The judge's finding that the Appellant was not of interest to the authorities was inconsistent with his finding that the Appellant was in danger when he left the country;
    2. The judge's reasoning for his finding that the Appellant's lack of difficulty leaving the country indicated he was not of adverse interest to the authorities did not address the CPIN evidence;
    3. The judge did not give adequate reasons for his conclusion that the Appellant would not be at risk on return as a result of the change in government in Bangladesh. The judge was not required to accept the Appellant's evidence, but he was required to consider and address it in his decision;
    4. The judge's reasons for rejecting the Appellant's documentary evidence were not adequate and were apt to indicate that the evidence had not been considered with care or at all.

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

 

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010