The Secretary of State for the Home Department v TC

First-tier Tribunal decisions in immigration appeals should adopt an issues-based structure. They should identify the principal important controversial issues, give concise legal directions, summarise the material evidence, and explain how the disputed issues are resolved. Lengthy reproduction of documents does not satisfy the duty to give adequate reasons.

On appeal, inadequate reasoning is established where the tribunal fails to engage with material evidence undermining its conclusion, even if the decision is lengthy. In Article 3 health cases, the applicant must first establish a prima facie case that the statutory threshold is met. The receiving state must then address doubts about appropriate treatment and practical access. Permission-to-appeal decisions should identify clearly which grounds are arguable and set the agenda for the proceedings.

The Secretary of State appealed against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 5 December 2022, which allowed TC’s appeal on all grounds. TC, a Zimbabwean national with refugee status granted in line with his mother, faced deportation following criminal convictions, proposed cessation of refugee status, and adverse decisions concerning Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The First-tier Tribunal found that TC had rebutted the section 72 presumption, that his refugee status should not cease, that removal would breach Article 3, and that statutory deportation exceptions applied. The Secretary of State challenged the adequacy of the tribunal’s reasoning on danger to the community, cessation, Article 3, Exception 1 and Exception 2.

1. Appeal partly allowed. The Upper Tribunal allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal on grounds 1, 2 and 5, concerning section 72, cessation and Exception 2. It dismissed grounds 3 and 4, concerning Article 3 and Exception 1.
2. The First-tier Tribunal gave inadequate reasons on whether TC remained a danger to the community. Its reasoning was exclusively favourable and did not explain the significance of the escalation in offending, the denial of the index offence, the OASys assessment, or the fact that serious mental-health relapses had occurred despite treatment and support.
3. The tribunal also failed to engage with the circumstances that had led to TC’s refugee status being granted in line with his mother. It did not address the proposed area of return in Zimbabwe or the significance of his mother’s political profile, as required by the country guidance in CM (EM country guidance; disclosure) Zimbabwe [2013] UKUT 59 (IAC).
4. The Article 3 reasoning was legally adequate. The evidence established that TC was a seriously ill person and that removal created a real risk of serious, rapid and irreversible deterioration involving intense suffering. The First-tier Tribunal was entitled to find that appropriate medication and essential community mental-health treatment would not be available in Zimbabwe. Once TC had established a prima facie case, the Secretary of State had to dispel the doubts raised by that evidence.
5. The First-tier Tribunal had not applied the elevated “unduly harsh” test required for Exception 2. Its brief reasons concerning TC’s young child did not explain why the statutory threshold was met.
6. The Upper Tribunal gave general guidance that First-tier Tribunal decisions should begin with the issues in dispute and use the principal evidence as building blocks for concise reasoning. Permission decisions should state clearly which grounds are arguable and provide focused reasons.
7. The case was retained in the Upper Tribunal for remaking. Further fact-finding would be limited principally to the asylum claim and any Article 8 claim.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): The Secretary of State’s appeal against the First-tier Tribunal decision dated 5 December 2022 was allowed on grounds 1, 2 and 5 and dismissed on grounds 3 and 4. The case was retained for remaking.