Upper Tribunal Sets Aside Immigration Decision, Orders Rehearing
📌 In brief
The Upper Tribunal found that there was an error of law in how the First-tier Tribunal assessed the claimant's credibility. As a result, the original decision has been set aside and the case will be heard again by the First-tier Tribunal.
⚖️ Legal holding
A material error of law in the assessment of credibility findings requires the setting aside of the First-tier Tribunal's decision and remittal for rehearing.
📖 Technical summary
The Upper Tribunal set aside the First-tier Tribunal's decision due to a material error of law and remitted the case for rehearing.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Upper Tribunal set aside the First-tier Tribunal's decision due to a material error in assessing credibility findings and remitted the case for rehearing.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Other
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-005585 First-tier Tribunal: PA/00477/2025 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Decision & Reasons Issued: On 11th of March 2026 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE [APPELLANT] (Anonymity decision made) Appellant and SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT Respondent Representation: For the Appellant: [redacted] For the Respondent: [redacted] Heard at Field House on 27 February 2026
DECISION AND
REASONS 1. The Appellant appeals with permission against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 14 August 2025 dismissing his appeal against the Respondent’s decision refusing his protection and human rights claim. Background 2. The Appellant a citizen of Iraq of Kurdish ethnicity claimed, in summary, that he was at risk on return to Iraq following the death of a colleague at his workplace for which the man’s family blamed the Appellant even though he had been acquitted of causing the man’s death by the court. The man’s father was a peshmerga with power and influence so the Appellant was unable to find safety anywhere in Iraq. © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2026
Appeal Number: UI-2025-005585 First-tier Tribunal: PA/00477/2025 The appeal to the First-tier Tribunal 3. The Appellant’s appeal against the Respondent’s decision was heard by First-tier Tribunal Judge Ficklin in an oral hearing on 12 August 2025. The Judge found that the Appellant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or risk of serious harm on a return to Iraq or that there were very significant obstacles to his reintegration. The appeal to the Upper Tribunal 4. The Appellant was granted permission to appeal the decision by First-tier Tribunal Judge Thomas on 17 November 2025. Judge Thomas found that the negative credibility findings of the Judge in areas where the Respondent had made concessions potentially infected the overall credibility findings in such a way as to amount to an arguable error of law. The hearing 5. Mr [RESPONDENT] confirmed that the Respondent had not filed a rule 24 response and that having spoken to Ms [APPELLANT] it was conceded that for the reasons outlined in the grounds the failure of the Judge to consider the Respondent’s concessions when making overall negative credibility findings amounted to a material error of law. Both representatives agreed that the nature of error meant that no findings could be preserved and that the matter must be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for rehearing. Findings – Error of Law 6. Having carefully considered the decision of the First-tier Tribunal, the grounds of appeal and the Respondent’s concession that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal displays a material error of law I am satisfied that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal must be set aside with no findings preserved and be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for rehearing. Notice of Decision The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of a material error on a point of law. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for rehearing with no findings preserved. Judge [NAME] Judge of the Upper Tribunal 5 March 2026 2
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Upper Tribunal Sets Aside Immigration Appeal Decision Due to Substantial Er…
- Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Allowed: Human Rights Grounds Overrule Removal Order
- Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Upper Tribunal Upholds Human Rights Appeal Based on Insurmountable Obstacle…
- Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Upper Tribunal Sets Aside Deportation Decision Due to Legal Error
- Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Asylum Appeal Set Aside Due to Insufficient Reasoning
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Awards Redundancy Payments and Back Pay
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rules in Favour of Constructive Unfair Dismissal and Bo…
- Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Upper Tribunal Dismisses Appeal for Pre-Settled Status Under EUSS
- Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Upper Tribunal Rejects Challenge to Human Rights Claim Certification
- Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Upper Tribunal Rejects Procedural Unfairness Claim in Entry Clearance Refus…
A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- A claimant is entitled to have their appeal reconsidered if there are substantial errors in the original decision that could affect the outcome of the case., A person's right to remain in the UK on human rights grounds must be assessed considering their private life, family ties, and medical needs, alongside their credibility., An appellant's immigration case may be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal if there are significant developments or related cases that affect the original decision., An employer must provide redundancy payments and backpay when a worker is made redundant due to loss of client work., An employer must make reasonable adjustments for a disabled employee if it is clear that an aspect of their work affects them adversely due to their disability.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- A respondent may lawfully certify an applicant’s human rights claim as 'clearly unfounded' if no reasonable tribunal could allow it., A person must have had lawful basis of stay in the UK as a durable partner before the specified date to qualify for Pre-Settled Status under the EU Settlement Scheme., An individual may meet the requirements of Paragraph EX.1 if there are insurmountable obstacles preventing their spouse from continuing family life abroad due t, A decision maker must provide an affected person with a reasonable opportunity to respond to serious allegations before making a final decision.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Upper Tribunal found that there was an error of law in how the First-tier Tribunal assessed the claimant's credibility.
Who was involved?
The case involves a claimant seeking refugee status and human rights protection, against the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
How did the court decide, and why?
The Upper Tribunal decided to set aside the First-tier Tribunal's decision because it found that there was an error in how credibility findings were made.
Which laws or rules were applied?
No specific laws or rules are cited in this case as it is a procedural decision based on an error of law.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The central reasoning was that the First-tier Tribunal failed to consider concessions made by the Home Office when making credibility findings.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision is neither for nor against the claimant, as it sets aside the original decision and orders a rehearing.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
If there are errors of law in how credibility findings were made, an appeal may be successful in setting aside the original decision.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The case is procedural and did not focus on specific evidence or documents.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
A decision to set aside a lower court's decision can typically be further appealed, but the specifics depend on the circumstances.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is highly recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving complex legal issues and potential appeals.