Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-003598

First-tier Tribunal No: EA/01017/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 2nd of December 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BRUCE
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DOYLE

Between

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Appellant
and

MUHAMMAD ALI RAZA
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr W Olabamiji of DMO Olabamiji solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr A Mullen, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Melville Street, Edinburgh, on 25 November 2025

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Secretary of State for the Home Department brings this appeal but to avoid confusion the parties are referred to as they were in the First-tier Tribunal. This is an appeal by the Respondent against a decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Rea, promulgated on 14 February 2024, which allowed the Appellant’s appeal.

Background
2. The Appellant is a citizen of Pakistan. He applied for a family permit under Appendix EU (Family Permit). In a decision dated 9 January 2023, the Respondent refused the appellant’s application.
The Judge’s Decision
3. The Appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. On 14 February 2024, First-tier Tribunal Judge Rea (“the Judge”) allowed the Appellant’s appeal.
4. The Respondent lodged grounds of appeal, and, on 30 July 2024, First-tier Tribunal Judge Scott granted permission to appeal. She said
2. The grounds assert that the Judge erred in making irrational findings on a matter that was material to the outcome, and/or failed to give adequate reasons on a matter that was material to the outcome. The grounds of appeal relate to the Judge’s findings that the appellant was financially dependent on his father.
3. There is an arguable error of law. Notwithstanding the Judge acknowledging the evidential gaps in the appellant’s claim to be dependent on the sponsor, the Judge made a finding that he was dependent. It is arguable that the Judge’s findings were irrational and inadequate given the lack of supporting evidence.
The Hearing
5. (a) The appellant is represented by Mr W Olabamiji of DMO Olabamiji solicitors. This appeal was listed for hearing at 10am. It was the only case remaining on the day’s list.
(b) Just before 10am, we were told that the appellant’s solicitor was running 20 minutes late. By 10.50am he had not arrived. The Respondent’s representative had been waiting since 9.30am. The sponsor and his friend arrived at 10.45am. We proceeded in the appellant’s solicitor’s absence.
(c) The hearing was brief and focused. By the time it finished, the appellant’s solicitor was still nowhere to be seen. We are told he arrived at the venue after the court was closed for the day.
6 (a) For the Respondent, Mr Mullan moved the grounds of appeal. He focused on paragraphs 4 and 5 of the grounds of appeal, and reminded us that the appeal centres on one single issue. Before the First-tier Tribunal, the only matter to be determined was the question of dependency. Mr Mullen told us that the Judge did not have evidence from which he could find that the appellant’s dependency on the EEA citizen continues after October 2021.
(b) Without that evidence (Mr Mullen said that) the Judge could not find that dependency has been established. He reminded us that there was an assertion that payment transfers were received which the Judge found to be plausible, but he argued that, evidentially, that is not enough. Mr Mullen said the Judge’s conclusions are not supported by the evidence placed before the First-tier.
(c) Mr Mullen told us that the Judge made a material error of law. He invited us to set the decision aside and to remake the decision by dismissing the appeal.
Analysis
7. The Judge’s findings of fact lie between [9] and [17] of the decision. The sponsor is the appellant’s father. At [11] of the decision the Judge finds that the appellant was dependent on the sponsor until at least his 18th birthday. The Judge explains that independence does not come as an 18th birthday present from parent to child.
8. At [12] of the decision, the Judge finds that the appellant remained dependent on the sponsor throughout his tertiary education, which ended in 2016. At [13], the Judge notes that the appellant continued to live in his parents’ house until at least 2022. At [14] the Judge considers evidence of financial transfers to the appellant and his mother in Pakistan.
9. AT [15] & [16], the Judge records the criticisms of the evidence made by the Home Office presenting officer in submissions. There, the Judge clearly records that the paper audit trail (tracking international financial transfers) stops in October 2021.
9. The application was made in November 2022. The thrust of the Respondent’s appeal is that because there is no documentary evidence for 13 months dependency must have ended. In the grounds of appeal the respondent looks for corroborative evidence.
10. There is no requirement for corroboration. There is also no requirement for specified evidence in an EUSS appeal.
11. What the Judge did was look at all of the evidence in the round. That is precisely what the Judge is meant to do. At [10], the Judge says
The primary evidence of dependency is the oral assertion to this effect given by the Sponsor to the Tribunal. I have considered the extent to which the documentary evidence is consistent with, and supports, this assertion. I have also considered the extent to which this assertion is plausible given the undisputed family circumstances.
12. The Judge found the sponsor to be credible. The sponsor’s evidence established dependency through childhood, through education, and after tertiary education. The sponsor said that dependency did not end when the financial paper trail ended in October 2021. The sponsor said that dependency continued. The Judge accepted the sponsor’s evidence
13. The Judge found the sponsor to be a credible and reliable witness. He placed weight on the sponsor’s oral evidence. The Judge clearly acknowledges gaps in the documentary evidence but finds that the sponsor’s oral evidence bridges that gap.
14. The Judge did not make findings for which there was no evidential basis. On the contrary, the Judge’s findings were supported by the evidence that he found to be credible and reliable.
15. Questions of credibility and the weight to be given evidence are matters for the Judge at first instance.
16. There is no irrationality in the Judge’s findings. It is clear from what is found between [9] and [18] of the decision that the Judge makes evidence-based findings in fact. The Judge applies the law to those findings in fact, and then comes to a conclusion well within the range of reasonable conclusions available to the Judge.
17. The decision does not contain a material error of law. The Judge’s decision stands.
DECISION
The appeal is dismissed. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal promulgated on 14 February 2024 stands.

Signed Paul Doyle Date 25 November 2025
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Doyle