UI2024000026

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the Appellant (N A) 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. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court .

By a decision promulgated on 21 February 2024, I found errors of law in the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Thorne itself dated 26 November 2023 dismissing the Appellant's appeal against the Respondent's decision refusing his protection and human rights claims in the context of a decision to remove the Appellant to his home country, Bangladesh. My error of law decision is annexed hereto for ease of reference.

Although I found errors of law in Judge Thorne's decision, those were limited to his reasoning and conclusion in relation to the human rights (Article 8 ECHR) grounds. I found no errors of law in his determination of the appeal on protection, Articles 2 and 3 ECHR grounds and therefore preserved up to paragraph [27] of his decision. I gave directions permitting the Appellant to file further evidence for the re-hearing. An additional bundle was filed albeit I did not receive that until the day of the hearing.

Having heard evidence and submissions from Mr Sharma and Mr Avery, I indicated that I would reserve my decision and provide that in writing with reasons which I now turn to do.

The Appellant abandoned his protection claim before Judge Thorne and his Article 2 and 3 ECHR claims fell away in consequence. A summary of his protection claim appears at [2] of my error of law decision. The Appellant's human rights claim which remains relies on his mental health, his relationship with his family members in the UK with whom he lives and the problems he says he would face on return to Bangladesh.