Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-004186
(EA/03086/23)
UI-2024-004187
(HU/03087/23)
UI-2024-004188
(HU/03088/23)

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 3rd of December 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BRUCE
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE NEILSON

Between

MIR HAMZA SAJID
ABU BAKAR HASAN
ABDUL REHMAN
(no anonymity order made)
Appellant
And

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant:
For the Respondent: Mr Mullen Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard in Edinburgh on the 26 November 2025

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellants are all nationals of Pakistan. Their appeals are linked because they are brothers, born respectively in 2003, 2004 and 2006. They each seek leave to enter the United Kingdom with ‘pre-settled status’ under the European Union Settlement Scheme, on the basis that they are the sons of a Mr Muhammad Azeem Rasool, a Spanish national residing in Glasgow.
2. The matter in issue before the First-tier Tribunal was whether the applications under the EUSS had been properly refused on the grounds that they had been supported by false information. Each Appellant had supplied a birth certificate showing himself to be the son of Mr Rasool, and a death certificate which they claimed related to their late mother. The Entry Clearance Officer in Islamabad had conducted verification checks on these documents and found them to be false. The reason given for that conclusion was that information relating to the sponsor on the birth certificates did not correspond with the details held by the Pakistan National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA); the subject of the death certificate was, according to the NADRA records, not in fact deceased.
3. The Appellants appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. They elected to have their appeals determined on the papers.
4. The appeal came before the First-tier Tribunal on 3 June 2024. In its written decision of the 10 June 2024 the Tribunal explained that the Appellants had lodged grounds of appeal, but no evidence to counter the allegations made by the Entry Clearance Officer. Those allegations were set out and evidenced by a ‘Document Verification Report’ (DVR) which the Tribunal had before it. In the absence of any evidence to say that the DVR was wrong, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
5. Permission to appeal to this Tribunal was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Meah on 8 October 2024. Judge Meah noted that the Appellants had in fact submitted evidence in support of their appeals. In particular they had submitted DNA tests as evidence that they are the sons of Mr Rasool, and court documents showing that they had issued proceedings again NADRA to compel it to amend its records, which the Appellants allege to be deficient. All of that material appears in a bundle alongside witness statements from the Appellants and the sponsor. Judge Meah considered it clear from the First-tier Tribunal decision that none of this material had been taken into account when the appeals were dismissed. This may have been because the Judge overlooked it; it may have been that as the result of an administrative error it had not been placed on the file. In either case there was here arguable unfairness, and so permission was granted.
6. Before us Mr Mullen accepted that there does appear to have been a procedural irregularity here, for the reasons identified by Judge Meah. If the Judge had the bundle, but made no reference to it, then the decision falls to be set aside for a failure to consider material evidence. If on the other hand, which appears to us more likely, the bundle had due to some administrative failing, not been available to the Judge, then the unfairness arises from a procedural irregularity of the type identified in MM (unfairness; E & R) Sudan [2014] UKUT 00105 (IAC):
“A successful appeal is not dependent on the demonstration of some failing on the part of the FtT. Thus an error of law may be found to have occurred in circumstances where some material evidence, through no fault of the FtT, was not considered, with resulting unfairness (E & R v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 49)”
7. It follows that the decision must be set aside and remitted for hearing afresh before a differently constituted First-tier Tribunal.
8. The Appellants should note that this matter will now proceed to be re-listed in the First-tier Tribunal in accordance with their request that it be decided on the papers. This means that Mr Rasool will not have an opportunity to attend court to answer any questions that the judge might have. If they wish for Mr Rasool to attend court, they must inform the First-tier Tribunal that they require an oral hearing, and pay the appropriate fee.

Decisions
9. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside.
10. The decision in the appeal will be remade in the First-tier Tribunal.
11. There is no order for anonymity in this matter.

Upper Tribunal Judge Bruce
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
26 November 2025