Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-001880

First-tier Tribunal No: EA/10708/2022

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 19 March 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RINTOUL

Between

MARIA THERESA MONTGOMERY
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr McTaggart, instructed by Worthingtons, solicitors.
For the Respondent: Ms E Blackburn Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Royal Courts of Justice, Belfast on 13 March 2025

DECISION MADE PURSUANT TO RULES 34, 39 & 40 (3) OF THE
TRIBUNAL PROCEDURE (UPPER TRIBUNAL) RULES 2008

1. The appellant appeals with permission against the decision of First-tier Tribunal S Taylor promulgated on 19 July 2024 dismissing her appeal against a decision of the Secretary of State to refuse to grant her leave pursuant to Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules (“the EUSS”). The appeal against that decision was under the Immigration (Citizens Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020).

2. Both parties agreed that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error of law for the reasons set out in the grounds of appeal. They are correct to do so. I am at a loss to understand how the judge could have reached a decision in this appeal without noting that this was a an appeal where the relevant EEA national was a “relevant person of Northern Ireland” and that the documentary requirements for demonstrating that the appellant is in a durable partnership are not the same as those identified in Celik. There is an alternative route which does not require the issue of a residence card. That was made abundantly clear in the detailed skeleton argument which the judge appears entirely to have overlooked.

3. Having taken instructions, Ms Blackburn explained that the respondent is now satisfied by the evidence supplied that the appellant does meet the criteria to be granted non-settled leave pursuant to EU14 of EUSS, and that accordingly, the appeal should be allowed. Having considered the material for myself, I came to the same conclusion.

4. Rule 40 (1) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 provided that the Upper Tribunal may give a decision orally at a hearing which I did. Rule 40 (3) provides that the Upper Tribunal must provide written reasons for its decision with a decision notice unless the parties have consented to the Upper Tribunal not giving full written reasons. I am satisfied that the parties have given such consent at the hearing.

5. As an aside, it is surprising that the appellant chose not to have an oral hearing in a case which was far from straightforward.

Notice of Decision

1. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error of law and is set aside.

2. I remake the appeal by allowing the appeal under the The appeal against that decision was under the Immigration (Citizens Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.

Signed Date: 13 March 2025
Jeremy K H Rintoul
Judge of the Upper Tribunal