Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-003405

First-tier Tribunal No: EA/00594/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

14th May 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MAHMOOD
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE COLE

Between

Mrs Sahra Mohamoud Abokor
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

Entry Clearance Officer
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Litigant in Person. Mr Abdulrahman Ahmed Ali, the Sponsor, in attendance
For the Respondent: Ms Newton, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Manchester Civil Justice Centre on 8 April 2025

DECISION AND REASONS
1. This is our oral decision which we delivered at the hearing today.
Introduction
2. The Appellant is a national of Somalia. She appeals with permission granted by First-tier Tribunal Judge O’Garro dated 17 July 2024 against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Forster (“the Judge”) dated 23 May 2024, which had dismissed her appeal against the Respondent’s decision dated 2 February 2024 to refuse her application dated 5 October 2023 for an EUSS family permit to join her son Mr Abdulrahman Ahmed Ali.
3. The matter had originally come for hearing before us on 11 February 2025. On that occasion, the Appellant appeared to be represented by Barings Solicitors and we issued a very clear decision and reasons whereby we were compelled to adjourn the matter because of failures on the part of the Appellant’s former solicitors. We were not satisfied that the Appellant or the Sponsor were made aware by Barings Solicitors that we could make a decision to deal with the appeal. In the interests of fairness, we felt compelled to adjourn the matter and which returns to us for hearing today.
The Hearing Before Us
4. Because the Sponsor appears without legal representation, we invited Ms Newton to provide her submissions first. Ms Newton referred to the Respondent’s Rule 24 reply dated 29 July 2024. She accepted that there had been an error of law in Judge Forster’s decision because it was wrong for the Judge to require evidence of dependency to be established at a ‘specified date’. Initially Ms Newton, when referring to the Rule 24 Reply, sought to contend that the error was not material. Ms Newton referred to the Court of Appeal’s decision in Lim v Entry Clearance Officer [2015] EWCA Civ 1383 and in particular the Court of Appeal’s judgment at paragraph 25.
5. During her submissions Ms Newton referred to Judge Forster’s decision and to the requirement of Appendix EU to the Immigration Rules. She said that the Judge was indeed wrong to refer to a specified date and also wrong to refer to that date as being 31 December 2023. She said the correct date for the Judge to consider the matter was whether or not the Appellant showed dependency as at the date of application, the date of application being 5 October 2023.
6. At paragraph 8 the Judge correctly referred to Appendix EU which states:
“‘dependent’ means:
(a) having regard to their financial and social conditions, or health, the applicant cannot, or (as the case may be) for the relevant period could not, meet their essential living needs, in whole or in part, without the financial or other material support of the relevant EEA citizen; and
(b) such support is, or, as the case may be, was being provided to the applicant by the relevant EEA citizen; and
(c) there is no need to determine the reasons for that dependence or for the recourse.”
7. In this case there is no dispute that the Sponsor, Mr Abdulrahman Ahmed Ali, is a national of Sweden and that, although there is a gap in the evidence of what was happening prior to the year 2022, since 2022 the clear evidence before the Judge, which was accepted, was that there had been dependency in terms of finance and other matters.
8. Indeed, Ms Newton correctly concedes that the Judge said at paragraph 15, “On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that from 2022 the Sponsor regularly sent money to the Appellant in varying amounts between $100 and $600”. Then at paragraph 17 the Judge said, “This is evidence of at least some of the Appellant’s current expenditure. It goes some way to showing her essential needs.” There was also reference at paragraph 16 to a tenancy agreement showing that the rent is paid by the Sponsor for the relevant time period. There were also copies of invoices from January 2023 in the name of the Appellant along with various receipts for groceries and the like, also in the Appellant’s name.
9. Ms Newton quite properly conceded that the Judge wrongly looked at the case through the lens of what was happening pre-2022. The Judge specifically referred to the wrong date and time periods, for example at paragraph 21. There is reference to the ‘specified date’ at paragraph 7 of the Judge’s decision.
Discussion
10. We conclude that Ms Newton correctly concedes there was an error of law. She correctly concedes further that the error of law is material. Ms Newton submitted to us that in the circumstances that we should re-make the decision and that the remaking ought in the circumstances lead to the appeal being allowed. We have reflected on this and we conclude that the submissions helpfully made by Ms Newton are entirely correct.
11. The Judge fell into error in considering the matter in the way that he did in separating the period pre-2022 in the way that was done and in seeking evidence. The Sponsor explained to us that he had been out of touch with the Appellant pre-2022 because of the war in Somalia and not being able to locate her. When the Sponsor found the Appellant, he was then able to provide essential assistance, which the Judge accepted had been provided.
12. It is clear therefore that the Appellant was dependant on the Sponsor in accordance with Appendix EU. Ms Newton is entirely right, that there was dependence by the Appellant on the EU Sponsor.
13. In the circumstances the decision we make is that the appeal is allowed.

Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal contained a material error of law.
We remake the decision and allow the Appellant’s appeal.
No anonymity direction is made.

Abid Mahmood

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

8 April 2025