Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-003045

First-tier Tribunal No: EA/03915/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
Consideration on the papers On 21 May 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KAMARA

Between

FATJON MARTINI
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

DECISION AND REASONS
Introduction
1. This decision should be read in conjunction with the decision dated 17 September 2024 in which the Upper Tribunal found that the First-tier Tribunal had erred in law. The First-tier Tribunal decision was set aside with no preserved findings.
Anonymity
2. No anonymity direction was made previously, and there is no reason for one now.
Factual Background
3. The appellant is a national of Albania who is married to a Greek national. On 13 May 2021, the appellant submitted an application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom under the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS). That application was refused by way of a decision dated 10 October 2021 in which it was alleged that the appellant had entered into a marriage of convenience as a means of circumventing the requirements for lawful entry to the United Kingdom.
4. At the error of law hearing the decision of the First-tier Tribunal was set aside as the judge had failed to consider a document which appeared to be the birth certificate of the appellant’s child with the sponsor. At the said hearing, the respondent contended that the birth certificate was a forgery on the basis of a heavily redacted email but no other evidence. As the appellant had elected not to attend the hearing and therefore was unaware of the allegation, the Upper Tribunal was unable to proceed to remake the decision at the error of law hearing. Consequently the hearing was adjourned with the following directions.
1. The Secretary of State is to file the document verification report and/or evidence from the registry office (Barking & Dagenham) within 28 days of the error of law hearing and to serve it on the appellant.
2. The appellant is directed to file any response to the Secretary of State’s evidence within 14 days of receiving it.
3. Regardless of whether any evidence or submissions are received, the Upper Tribunal will proceed to decide the appeal on the papers once 6 weeks have elapsed from the error of law hearing date.
5. Ultimately, the respondent filed a document verification report (DVR), a position statement, along with evidence that those items had been served on the appellant. The Upper Tribunal is satisfied that the appellant was served with the DVR and position statement via email. The DVR describes the birth certificate as ‘false.’ That conclusion was reached after communication with the Registrar at the registry where the document was purportedly issued. While the appellant has been in communication with the Upper Tribunal about the progress of his case, he has elected not to respond to the allegation that he submitted a forged birth certificate and nor has he provided any further evidence to indicate that he and the sponsor had a child or that their marriage was not one of convenience.
6. Considering the circumstances cumulatively, I find the DVR to be a reliable document and one to which I attach considerable weight.
7. I now turn to the decision under appeal dated 10 October 2021, the salient section of which is set out here.
• It is noted that you have previously came to the attention of Border Force when , in 2014, you were refused entry for presenting a falsified Italian Identity card. Furthermore you have admitted that you subsequently entered the United Kingdom illegally in 2015 and remained here undocumented until 2018 while working cash in hand in a car wash.
• It is further noted that you have married your wife after a very brief relationship, have no common language with her and indeed did not even inform her of your previous adverse history before travelling. In addition neither of you have been able to provide dates for when you first met , when you decided to marry or agree on whether this proposal occurred over the phone or face to face.
• Whilst the burden of proof lies with me to prove that this is a marriage of convenience, there is also a responsibility upon you to present, in support of your application, adequate documentation readily available to a normal couple to demonstrate your relationship. However neither of you have been able to produce any evidence whatsoever of your relationship other than a few photographs taken in the last four days. I find your explanation that you did not transfer any evidence over to your new phone less than credible.
• In the circumstances I am satisfied that your marriage is one of convenience only and that you are not therefore the family member of an EEA national who has a right to be admitted to the United Kingdom under regulation 11(2)
8. The points made in the decision letter remain unaddressed in these proceedings. It is notable that the appellant avoided attending his hearing in-person at the First-tier Tribunal where he could have addressed the respondent’s concerns as to his relationship with the sponsor. In his witness statement dated 15 March 2024, prepared for the First-tier Tribunal hearing, the appellant did not engage with the decision under challenge but relied on the best interests of his (alleged) child. The sponsor’s statement was more fulsome but resembled legal arguments more than an account of the relationship. Again she did not attend the First-tier Tribunal hearing and the concerns of the respondent were barely addressed.
9. While the appellant provided other documents which include reference to a shared tenancy, these documents date from 2020. The sole utility bill provided dates from 2022. Given the appellant’s reliance on a false birth certificate, I am not prepared to place any more than minimal weight on this material.
10. I conclude that the respondent has discharged the burden of providing reasonable grounds to show that the appellant entered into a marriage of convenience. Those appellant has provided no evidence to rebut those grounds. Furthermore, the appellant’s reliance on a false document provides further grounds for concluding that he entered into a marriage of convenience.
11. The appellant has not demonstrated that he meets the requirements of the European Union Settlement Scheme and therefore this appeal is dismissed.
Conclusions
The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error on a point of law. The decision of the FTT is set aside to be re-made. I substitute a decision dismissing the appeal.
Notice of Decision
The appeal is dismissed.

T Kamara

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

16 May 2025

NOTIFICATION OF APPEAL RIGHTS
1. A person seeking permission to appeal against this decision must make a written application to the Upper Tribunal. Any such application must be received by the Upper Tribunal within the appropriate period after this decision was sent to the person making the application. The appropriate period varies, as follows, according to the location of the individual and the way in which the Upper Tribunal’s decision was sent.
2. Where the person who appealed to the First-tier Tribunal is in the United Kingdom at the time that the application for permission to appeal is made, and is not in detention under the Immigration Acts, the appropriate period is 12 working days (10 working days, if the notice of decision is sent electronically).
3. Where the person making the application is in detention under the Immigration Acts, the appropriate period is 7 working days (5 working days, if the notice of decision is sent electronically).
4. Where the person who appealed to the First-tier Tribunal is outside the United Kingdom at the time that the application for permission to appeal is made, the appropriate period is 38 days (10 working days, if the notice of decision is sent electronically).
5. A “working day” means any day except a Saturday or a Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday or a bank holiday.
6. The date when the decision is “sent’ is that appearing on the covering letter or covering email