TN -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)

Immigration and Asylum Chamber (Upper Tribunal)Anonymity Order

Case number: JR-2024-LDS-000035

In the Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
Judicial Review

28 February 2026

Before:

Upper Tribunal Judge Kebede

Between:

The King on the application of
TN

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (UT rule 30(1))

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Applicant and the Acknowledgement of Service filed by the Respondent

Order by Upper Tribunal Judge Kebede:

Anonymity Order

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the Applicant is granted anonymity. No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the Applicant, likely to lead members of the public to identify the Applicant without their express consent. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

The Applicant’s application, in the notice of 25 February 2026, for permission to rely upon further amended grounds and a supplemental bundle is granted

The Respondent is DIRECTED, no later than 14 days from the date of this order to file and serve any amended summary grounds of defence upon which she may wish to rely, in response to the Applicant’s further amended grounds of claim.

Reasons

  1. The Applicant, a national of Vietnam, seeks permission to challenge the Respondent’s decision (initially of 10 April 2024) which he claims purports to grant him limited leave to remain, having already granted him indefinite leave to remain (“ILR”), and the subsequent failure of the Respondent to implement its decision to grant him ILR.
  2. In a letter dated 10 April 2024 (the immigration decision) the Respondent refused the Applicant’s protection claim but granted discretionary leave to remain in the UK. The Applicant’s appeal against the refusal of his protection claim was subsequently treated as withdrawn due to the Respondent’s confirmation that the immigration decision had been withdrawn on the grounds of the Applicant being recognised as a refugee and the anticipation that 5 years’ refugee leave was to be granted.
  3. The challenge in this case arises from the wording of the letter of 10 April 2024 which the Applicant considers conferred settlement/ ILR but the Respondent disputes as having been simply a typographical error. The amended grounds respond to the implications of the withdrawal of the immigration decision, asserting that ILR having been conferred upon the Applicant, that leave could not be withdrawn other than by way of revocation under section 76 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
  4. I see no reason why the amended grounds ought not to be admitted, given that they arise from the same and sole issue of the legal status of the wording in the decision of 10 April 2025 in relation to a purported grant of ILR. However, the Respondent ought to be given an opportunity to respond and to file and serve amended summary grounds of defence.
  5. In the circumstances the following directions are made:

Directions:

No later than 14 days from the date of this order, the Respondent is to file and serve any amended summary grounds of defence upon which she may wish to rely, in response to the Applicant’s application notice of 25 February 2026.