UI2023004864 & UI2023004865

            The respondent argues that the judge made a material misdirection of law on a material matter for the following reasons:

            I was provided with a composite bundle consisting of 207 pages and the appellants' Response dated 14 March 2025, which the Secretary of State for the Home Department's ('SSHD') had not been served. I heard submissions from both parties and have referred to the relevant evidence and submissions in my discussion below.

            Following the Court of Appeal's judgement in the case of Rexhaj the appellants reviewed their position and conceded that the SSHD's appeal succeeds. Having made the concession, the appellants went on to submit:

"The appellants aver that their appeals against the SSHD's decision must succeed in any event, on the basis of the argument advanced by the AIRE Centre in Rexhaj that the Court of Appeal declined to determine (see [64]-[69] of the judgement)."

            Mr Parvar, on behalf of the respondent, submitted that the AIRE Centre/discrimination argument was a new issue, that had not previously been raised by the appellants. He further submitted, in light of the judgment in Rexhaj , the decision of the FtT should be set aside and the appeal dismissed outright.