UI2026000601 & UI2026000602 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000601 (24 April 2026)

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

DONATE ] United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments You are here:

BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments >> UI2026000601 & UI2026000602 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000601 (24 April 2026) URL: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2026/UI2026000601.html Cite as: [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000601 [ 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- 2026-000601; UI-2026-000602 First-tier Tribunal No: HU/54488/2022; HU/54492/2022 LH/01097/2022 LH/01133/2022

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Decision & Reasons Issued: On 24 th of April 2026 Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE

PICKERING Between

JOHANN SEBASTIAN GIL PENARANDA

TRISHA GILIANNE PENARANDA (NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE) Appellants and

ENTRY CLEARANCE OFFICER Respondent Representation : For the Appellants: Mr Malik, of Counsel For the Respondent: Ms Everett, a Home Office Presenting Officer Heard at Field House on 16 April 2026

DECISION AND REASONS 1. The appellants appeal with permission against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal promulgated on 17 October 2025 dismissing their appeals.

2. The matter came before me on 16 April 2026 and on that occasion, Ms Everitt drew to my attention a response under Rule 24 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 which accepted that the Judge had materially erred in law.

3. As expressed to the parties, my preliminary view had been that the Judge had erred in law because whilst the Judge makes reference to TD (Paragraph 297(i)(e): "sole responsibility") Yemen [2006] UKAIT 00049 at §17 of their determination they have not directed themselves to the legal test that the authority requires them to do. The Judge also does not make findings of fact about the circumstances of the appellants' current living circumstances which are material to that test. I accept the contents of the rule 24. The Judge made material errors of law in their determination.

4. There were helpful discussions with the parties about disposal and their views aligned with mine. Whilst acknowledging that remaking rather than remitting would be the normal approach even if some further fact finding is necessary, given that all the facts need to be found, and having regard to the overriding objective I have decided to remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.

5. In terms of the management of the appeal, making directions for listing, this is best done by Taylor House. However I accept Mr Malik's submission that an opportunity to file any update evidence 14 days before hearing would assist the decision making process. Decision 6. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside.

7. The decision in the appeal will be remitted and remade in the First-tier Tribunal by a Judge other than the one who originally heard the appeal.

8. No anonymity order was sought and I did not consider one to be necessary. RA Pickering Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2026/UI2026000601.html