- Case title:
- Appellant name:
- Status of case: Unreported
- Hearing date:
- Promulgation date:
- Publication date:
- Last updated on:
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2022-005478
First-tier Tribunal No: EA/02924/2022
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Decision & Reasons Issued:
On the 29 April 2023
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KEBEDE
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE McCARTHY
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
OLUFUNKE MORAYO AKINTEMI
(anonymity order not made)
For the Appellant: Ms A Nolan, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: No Appearance
Heard at Field House on 22 March 2023
DECISION AND REASONS
1. This appeal came before us following a grant of permission to appeal on 7 November 2022 against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Allen, promulgated on 12 August 2022, allowing Ms Akintemi’s appeal brought before the First-tier Tribunal against the refusal of her application for an EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) Family Permit as the family member of a relevant EEA national, namely her Dutch partner Mr Akrinbola.
2. For the purposes of this decision, we shall hereinafter refer to the Secretary of State as the respondent and Ms Akintemi as the appellant, reflecting their positions as they were in the appeal before the First-tier Tribunal.
3. The appellant’s application for an EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) Family Permit was refused on 26 February 2022, on the basis that the respondent was not satisfied that she was the durable partner of her sponsor and that she was therefore a family member of a relevant EEA citizen.
4. Judge Allen, in allowing the appeal, found that the appellant was the durable partner of her sponsor and that the requirements in FP6 of Appendix EU (Family Permit) to the Immigration Rules had been met, there being no further issues raised in the refusal decision and the Entry Clearance Officer having confirmed that it was not necessary for a person applying under Appendix EU-FP to have been documented as a durable partner.
5. The respondent appealed against that decision on the grounds that the Tribunal had misconstrued the immigration rules in respect of whether the appellant required a “relevant document” rather than other significant evidence of durability of the relationship.
6. At the hearing before us, Ms Nolan confirmed that the respondent wished to withdraw the appeal before the Upper Tribunal since it was accepted that there was no requirement in FP6 of Appendix EU-FP for a “relevant document” in the circumstances of this case.
7. Rule 17 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 provides for a party to withdraw its case before the Upper Tribunal, with the consent of the Tribunal. That consent is now given.
8. The effect of the withdrawal is that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal is unchallenged and shall stand.
Notice of Decision
9. The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve the making of an error on a point of law. The decision to allow the appeal stands.
Signed: S Kebede
Upper Tribunal Judge Kebede
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
22 March 2023