Summary of Judgment

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant is a national of Country A. She entered State A in February 2020 with six months' leave as a visitor and claimed asylum within two months. The Defendant refused asylum and related claims ("the Decision"). The Appellant's health deteriorated during her stay; she advanced claims that removal to Country A would breach article 3 ECHR on health grounds and article 8 ECHR. The Appellant's appeal was dismissed by the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) ("the F-tT") in determination 1. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) ("the UT") dismissed the Appellant's appeal in determination 2, holding no error of law in determination 1. The Appellant obtained permission to appeal to this court from Judge Phillips. The F-tT judge was Judge Bagral. A litigation friend was appointed for the Appellant. The Appellant was represented by Attorney Jones and Attorney Fitzsimons in this court (different counsel represented her in earlier proceedings); the Defendant was represented throughout by Home Office presenting officers and equivalent counsel in this court.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the F-tT failed to take into account, for the purposes of article 3 ECHR (medical/health cases), three specific factors now relied on by the Appellant: (a) separation from her primary carers in State A (in particular her daughter), (b) the effect of the process of removal itself, and (c) the impact on her dignity of being cared for in Country A by male relatives.
2. Whether the UT erred in law in upholding the F-tT's approach to the Appellant's article 8 ECHR claim (proportionality and "very significant obstacles").

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The F-tT omitted to consider the three factors above in assessing whether removal would cause "intense suffering" under article 3.
• The Appellant lacks capacity; the close caregiver relationship in State A (especially with her daughter) and the care she receives amount to "treatment" relevant to the article 3 test.
• The F-tT erred in its article 8 assessment; her lawful presence (section 3C leave) and dependency warranted greater weight against removal.

Defendant's Arguments

• The three factors were not relied upon below (or were not pleaded as now contended) and therefore the F-tT was not obliged to decide them; the UT correctly held that the F-tT did not err in law.
• The F-tT properly assessed credibility, medical evidence and family circumstances and reached conclusions open to it on the evidence; the article 8 proportionality assessment was properly conducted taking account of statutory factors.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Lata (FTT: principal controversial issues) [2023] UKUT 00163; [2023] Imm AR 1416	Parties' duty to identify the "principal controversial issues" before the F-tT; tribunal need not decide points not raised unless Robinson-obvious; procedural rigour and case management obligations (ASA requirement).	The court endorsed Lata's approach: appellants must identify principal issues; tribunals are not required to search for unargued points; this case was decided on that basis.
AAZA (Yemen) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 705	Consideration of Lata in this court; noted possible qualification to Lata where strict application might cause serious injustice.	The court revisited AAZA's treatment of Lata and stated it saw little prospect of injustice under current procedural rigour; left the narrow qualification for rare cases.
R (Robinson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1998] QB 929	Appellate authorities may apply Convention jurisprudence to facts even if point not argued; limited "Robinson obvious" principle allowing intervention where an obvious point of refugee law with strong prospects was not raised.	The court applied Robinson narrowly: the Robinson exception did not assist the Appellant because her case did not meet the stringent merits test and her points were not "Robinson obvious".
AM (Article 3; health cases) Zimbabwe 2022] UKUT 00131 (IAC)	Framework for article 3 medical cases and the "intense suffering" threshold.	The court noted the UT relied on that framework in assessing whether removal would cause "intense suffering"; it concluded the F-tT's application of the framework was open to it on the evidence.
Singh v Dass [2019] EWCA Civ 360	Referenced in AAZA in relation to appellate review and procedural matters (not an immigration case).	The court noted Bean LJ quoted Singh in AAZA; AAZA left open limited questions about Lata's application in rare injustice cases.
South Bucks District Council v Porter (No 2) [2004] UKHL 33; [2004] 1 WLR 1953	Example of use of "principal controversial issues" concept in public law reasons-giving.	The court cited it as an example of the symmetry between parties' duty to identify main issues and tribunal's duty to explain its decision.
Jeunesse v Netherlands (2015) 60 EHRR 17	ECtHR authorities on weight to be given to precariousness/unlawfulness of residence in article 8 assessments.	The court cited Jeunesse to support the proposition that precarious residence is relevant in article 8 proportionality assessments.
R (Agyarko) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKSC 11; [2017] 1 WLR 823	Domestic authorities treating residence status as a relevant factor in article 8 cases.	The court relied on Agyarko (and related discussion in Arshad) to explain that precarious residence reduces weight of private/family life in proportionality balancing.
Arshad v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 355	Discussion of article 8 proportionality and the weight of residence status, referencing Jeunesse and Agyarko.	The court referenced Arshad to explain the legal context for weighing precarious residence in the article 8 balance.
Devaseelan (Second Appeals – ECHR – Extra-Territorial Effect) Sri Lanka [2002] UKIAT 00702	Referenced in Lata in relation to whether a tribunal should start from an earlier determination or consider the possibility of internal relocation/other issues.	The UT in Lata referred to Devaseelan when discussing what issues a tribunal should treat as obvious or to be raised by parties; cited here as part of Lata's analysis.
Bokqiu v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 191	Held that some residence obtained by deception may not amount to "lawful" residence for Part 5A purposes.	The court noted Bokqiu was handed down after the hearing; parties provided submissions and the court took those submissions into account in relation to article 8 weight; it treated that point as marginal in this appeal.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court addressed two narrow issues: (i) whether the F-tT had failed to consider the three factors relied on under article 3 and (ii) whether the UT erred in upholding the F-tT's article 8 approach.

The court explained and applied the procedural principles in Lata: appellants must identify the "principal controversial issues" (ASA requirement and case management obligations) so that the F-tT can fairly decide the appeal; tribunals are not obliged to search the papers for unargued points. The court reiterated the limited Robinson principle: only in narrow refugee-law circumstances (a "Robinson obvious" point with strong prospects) may a tribunal be required to decide a point not raised.

The court reviewed the F-tT's findings of fact (credibility, contacts with family in Country A, medical evidence, dependency on family in State A) and concluded those findings were comprehensive and open to the F-tT on the evidence. The F-tT had: accepted that the Appellant suffered serious illness and lacked capacity, assessed the medical reports, rejected parts of the Appellant's account (including alleged threats and absolute absence of family support in Country A), and concluded the treatment and family support the Appellant needed would be available in Country A or could be provided by family there.

The court found the UT was correct to conclude the three factors were not argued below in the manner now advanced; the F-tT was not required to decide points not put to it (subject to the Robinson exception, which did not apply here). The court accepted that the F-tT addressed two of the three points in the article 8 context, and that even if the F-tT had erred on some narrow matters, the claimed consequences would not reach the "intense suffering" threshold under article 3.

On article 8, the court noted the F-tT properly conducted a proportionality assessment, taking into account Part 5A statutory factors (including the precarious nature of the Appellant's immigration status) and relevant Strasbourg and domestic authorities. The court rejected the Appellant's submission that personal care necessarily equates to "treatment" for article 3 purposes as unnecessary to decide; it assumed the point arguendo but rejected the Appellant's case on the merits because the F-tT's factual findings undermined the assumptions behind the medical evidence.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

Holding: The court dismissed the Appellant's appeal. It held that the UT did not err in law in concluding that the F-tT had not been required to decide the three points as now advanced and that the F-tT's article 8 assessment was lawful.

Implications: The direct effect is that the F-tT's and the UT's determinations stand. The court endorsed the procedural approach in Lata (parties' duty to identify principal issues; tribunals not obliged to search for unargued points) while noting a narrowly confined Robinson exception and a limited comment on AAZA's qualification; no broader new legal principle was established beyond these endorsements and clarifications. The decision's practical consequence is to reaffirm the procedural rigour expected of parties in the F-tT and the limited circumstances in which appellate tribunals will intervene where issues were not argued below.

---

This summary has been prepared from the provided opinion and is fully anonymised. Personal names, employer names and locations have been replaced by neutral descriptors used consistently throughout.