Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-003204

First-tier Tribunal No: EA/03383/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 5 September 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BRUCE
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PAUL LEWIS

Between

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Appellant
and

QAMAR ABBAS
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: The sponsor
For the Respondent: Dr. Ibisi, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Manchester Civil Justice Centre on 23 May 2025

DECISION AND REASONS

Background

1. Although the appellant is the Secretary of State, the parties are referred to as they were at the First-tier Tribunal.

2. On 28th October 2019, the appellant made an application for entry clearance to the United Kingdom to join his brother and sponsor under the terms of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (‘the Regulations’).

3. His application was refused on 3rd February 2021 on the grounds that the appellant had failed to prove his relationship with the sponsor; his dependency upon the sponsor and that the sponsor was exercising ‘treaty rights’ in the UK.

4. The appellant appealed. For reasons irrelevant to this decision, his appeal was not progressed until 22nd November 2023. In support, the appellant relied on a 213-page bundle of documents including his witness statements and that of his sponsor.

5. The matter was determined ‘on the papers’, without an oral hearing. In a short decision promulgated on 10th May 2024, the Judge allowed the appeal. The entire reason for doing so was set out at [9] in these terms:

‘The grounds of refusal were addressed and dealt with by the statements and documents referred to above. The respondent has not challenged the appellant’s case as now supported by evidence.’

The hearing

6. The sponsor attended the hearing. He was assisted by an interpreter in the Urdu language. There was no written response to the appeal on behalf of the appellant.

7. On our enquiry Dr. Ibisi confirmed that other that the sufficiency of reasons the respondent did not wish to make specific challenges to the appellant’s evidence. The respondent simply submits that the judge erred in failing to give any or sufficient reasons for allowing the appeal

8. The appellant’s case was put with equal brevity: ‘The judge was right’.

9. At the conclusion of the hearing, we allowed the allowed the appeal and re-made the decision. Our reasons are set out below.

Discussion

10. We are reminded by the Senior President of Tribunals Practice Direction 2024, at [7]

‘Stating reasons at any greater length than is necessary in the particular case is not in the interests of justice. To do so is an inefficient use of judicial time, does not assist either the parties or an appellate court or tribunal, and is therefore inconsistent with the overriding objective. Providing concise reasons is to be encouraged. Adequate reasons for a substantive decision may often be short. In some cases, a few succinct paragraphs will suffice’

11. However short a decision, it must always contain adequate reasons. In the short determination the judge failed to provide any proper analysis of the evidence or reasons for allowing the appeal. Such failure amounted to a material error of law.

Disposal

12. After a period of reflection, Dr. Ibisi conceded that it was appropriate for us to re-make the decision on the basis of the evidence before us. In the circumstances in which there is no direct challenge to the evidence, and having heard submissions from the parties, we remade the decision. In doing so, we note that it is for the appellant to demonstrate on the balance of probability that he meets the requirements of the Regulations.

The evidence, findings and reasons.

13. The appellant and sponsor have provided witness statements as to their relationship. These chime with the appellant’s Family Registration certificate and their respective birth certificates, which support the claim that they are brothers. We find the appellant and sponsor are related as claimed.

14. The appellant has provided money transfer receipts showing payments to him between 14th January 2020 and 8th December 2023. These are made on a monthly basis and are consistent with his claim to be dependent upon the sponsor. Further, the appellant has provided medical evidence of an injury to his leg, which he says, and we find to be, consistent with his claimed inability to continue his employment in farming, and consequent dependency upon the sponsor. The appellant has provided evidence of his former tax affairs show how his financial circumstances changed. We accept this unchallenged evidence demonstrates how he lost his income from employment.

15. We have examined correspondence from the sponsor’s employer together with his ‘pay-slips’ which evidence to the required standard that the sponsor is exercising his treaty rights in the UK.

16. On the balance of probabilities, the appellant meets the requirements of the Regulations.

Notice of Decision

1. The decision of decision of the First-tier Judge promulgated on 10th May 2024 contained a material error of law and is set aside.

2. We remake the decision and allow the appeal.

Paul Lewis

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

30th May 2025