Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-004629
UI-2024-004630
First-tier Tribunal No: HU/60173/2023 HU/60174/2023
LH/02911/2024
LH/02912/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 24th of November 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LOUGHRAN

Between
AM
MM
(ANONYMITY ORDER CONTINUED)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr B Malik, Counsel instructed via Direct Access
For the Respondent: Mr K Ojo, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 20 October 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellants are granted anonymity.

No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the appellants, likely to lead members of the public to identify the appellants.
Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
Introduction
1. This is the re-making decision in respect of the appellants’ appeals, following an error of law decision made by Upper Tribunal Judge Bruce and Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Richards dated 11 September 2025.
2. The appellants are sisters who are citizens of Eritrea. The appellants appeal pursuant to section 82(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, against the refusals of their human rights claims dated 24 July 2023. The appellants had applied for entry clearance to join their brother, the sponsor, a British Citizen, under paragraph 297 of the Immigration Rules. At the time of the application AM was 17 and MM was 16 years old.
3. I am satisfied that the anonymity order should be continued. The appellants have been registered as refugees by the UNHCR. The potential risk of harm upon identification and maintaining the integrity of the UK asylum system justifies derogation from the principle of open justice in this case.
Relevant Background
4. The sponsor is a British Citizen, having previously been granted refugee status.
5. The sponsor and appellants’ father died on 12 December 2017. Their mother remains in Eritrea.
6. On 11 January 2020, AM fled Eritrea and travelled to Sudan. On 1 October 2020 she arrived in Cairo, Egypt and claimed asylum. On 1 December 2020 MM joined AM in Cairo and claimed asylum having also fled Eritrea and travelled through Sudan. Both the appellants have refugee registration cards issued by the UNHCR. A family friend initially looked after the appellants in Cairo, but refused to continue in this role after 1 July 2023.
7. The sponsor stays in contact with the appellants through telephone calls and has visited them in Cairo on six occasions.
Issues
8. The appellants contend that they meet the requirements for indefinite leave to enter the United Kingdom as the child of a relative present and settled in the United Kingdom as outlined in paragraph 297 of the immigration rules. The appellants must meet the following requirements:
“(i) is seeking leave to enter to accompany or join a parent, parents or a relative in one of the following circumstances:
(f) one parent or a relative is present and settled in the United Kingdom or being admitted on the same occasion for settlement and there are serious and compelling family or other considerations which make exclusion of the child undesirable and suitable arrangements have been made for the child’s care; and
(ii) is under the age of 18; and
(iii) is not leading an independent life, is unmarried and is not a civil partner, and has not formed an independent family unit; and
(iv) can, and will, be accommodated adequately by the parent, parents or relative the child is seeking to join without recourse to public funds in accommodation which the parent, parents or relative the child is seeking to join, own or occupy exclusively; and
(v) can, and will, be maintained adequately by the parent, parents, or relative the child is seeking to join, without recourse to public funds; and
(vi) holds a valid United Kingdom entry clearance for entry in this capacity; and
(vii) does not fall for refusal under the general grounds for refusal.”
9. The appellants were both under the age of 18 at the date of the applications. Paragraph 27 of the immigration rules states that an “application for entry clearance is to be decided in the light of the circumstances existing at the time of the decision, except that an applicant will not be refused an entry clearance where entry is sought in one of the categories contained in paragraphs 296-316 or paragraph EC-C of Appendix FM solely on account of his attaining the age of 18 years between receipt of his application and the date of the decision on it.” Mr Ojo confirmed that he did not take any issue with the fact that the appellants were both now over 18 in respect of whether they met the requirements of paragraph 297 of the immigration rules.
10. Mr B Malik and Mr K Ojo agreed that the only extant issues between the parties in respect of paragraph 297 are:
a. whether there are serious and compelling family or other considerations which make exclusion of the child undesirable and suitable arrangements have been made for the child’s care; and
b. whether the appellants can and will be adequately maintained by the sponsor.
11. If I find that the appellants do not meet the requirements if paragraph 297 of the immigration rules I am required to consider whether their exclusion from the United Kingdom would be a disproportionate breach of theirs and the sponsors right to a family life under Article 8 of the ECHR.
The Hearing
12. I heard evidence from the sponsor who adopted the contents of his three witness statements and was cross examined. I heard submissions from Mr K Ojo and Mr B Malik.
13. The hearing was recorded, and I have also made a written record of proceedings.
Findings and Conclusions
Serious and Compelling Considerations
14. The Upper Tribunal gave guidance on the approach to be taken to paragraph 297(i)(f) in Mundeba (s.55 and para 297(i)(f)) [2013] UKUT 00088(IAC). The relevant section of the headnote states:
“iv) Family considerations require an evaluation of the child's welfare including emotional needs. 'Other considerations' come in to play where there are other aspects of a child's life that are serious and compelling for example where an applicant is living in an unacceptable social and economic environment. The focus needs to be on the circumstances of the child in the light of his or her age, social backgrounds and developmental history and will involve inquiry as to whether:-
a. there is evidence of neglect or abuse;
b. there are unmet needs that should be catered for;
c. there are stable arrangements for the child's physical care;
The assessment involves consideration as to whether the combination of circumstances are sufficiently serious and compelling to require admission.
v) As a starting point the best interests of a child are usually best served by being with both or at least one of their parents. Continuity of residence is another factor; change in the place of residence where a child has grown up for a number of years when socially aware is important.”
15. I accept the sponsor’s evidence before me at the hearing today. His evidence was detailed, compelling and spontaneous. I find him to be a credible witness who has provided me with a truthful account.
16. I note that there is no witness evidence from the appellants, which I may have been assisted by. However, I am satisfied that the issues have been adequately addressed by the sponsor and the supporting evidence.
17. I am satisfied that the appellants left Eritrea illegally. They do not fit within any of the categories of lawful exit outlined in MST and Others (national service – risk categories) Eritrea CG [2016] UKUT 00443 (IAC) and they have been registered as refugees by the UNHCR in Egypt.
18. I am satisfied that the appellants’ and sponsor’s father died on 12 December 2017. I note that the sponsor’s account is corroborated by a letter from Al-Ikhlas Centre dated 20 July 2025 confirming that a condolence gathering was held in his honour on 15 December 2017. I note that the letter is recent, but I am satisfied that is because it was obtained for this appeal.
19. I am also satisfied that the appellants’ and sponsor’s brother went missing in May 2022 and was subsequently found dead in August 2022. I note that this is corroborated by emails between the sponsor and his former employer and his PHD supervisors. In an email dated 4 August 2022, the sponsor emailed his PHD supervisors asking to meet over zoom instead of in person because his brother had disappeared for almost three months and that it was affecting him a lot. In an email dated 22 August 2022, the sponsor emailed his employer informing his employer that he had returned to work but requesting to work at home for a week because he did not want to feel emotional/sad in front of everyone. It is clear from the employer’s response that he is aware that the sponsor had recently suffered a bereavement. It is also corroborated by a letter from the Eritrean Muslim Community Centre dated 31 July 2025, confirming that a condolence gathering was held at their centre for the appellants’ and sponsor’s brother on 27 August 2022. Again, I do not take issue with the fact that this letter is recent because I am satisfied that it was that it was obtained for this appeal.
20. It is not in dispute that the appellant and sponsor’s mother is in Eritrea. I accept the sponsor’s evidence that he sends money to his mother in Eritrea and that when he visits the appellants in Cairo he arranges for the appellants to speak to her. I also accept that the family believe that the she is being monitored in Eritrea because three of her children left Eritrea illegally. I note that in MST and Others (national service – risk categories) Eritrea CG the Upper Tribunal cited country background evidence indicating that family members of deserters/those who left illegally were targeted or punished, although the Upper Tribunal found that it was among the “less likely occurrences”. I do not make a finding one way of the other as to whether the appellants’ and sponsor’s mother is being surveilled, but I accept that the family genuinely believe that she is. I therefore find that this belief would prevent her from attempting to leave Eritrea to join the appellants in Egypt.
21. I note that a family friend initially looked after the appellants when they first arrived in Egypt, but I accept the sponsor’s evidence that she refused to do so after July 2023. I accept the evidence that she was not paid to care for the appellants and I note that the appellants applied for entry clearance on 26 May 2023.
22. In light of the above, I am satisfied that the appellants live alone with no-one else in Egypt to provide them with care or support. They are two lone young women who are not in employment or education and do not leave their accommodation unless it is absolutely necessary. I accept that they are in an extremely precarious and vulnerable situation. I am satisfied that there are serious and compelling family or other considerations which make the appellants’ exclusion from the UK undesirable.
23. I am satisfied that the appellants are dependent on the sponsor for emotional support as well as financial support. They speak and message him regularly and I am satisfied that there are no other relatives who can provide them with that support.
24. If excluded from the UK, the appellants would lose the benefit of being able to live with and be supported by their older brother, the sponsor. The proposed setting in the UK is stable, in contrast to the arrangements in Egypt.
Maintenance
25. The interpretation of “adequate” in respect of maintenance and accommodation is addressed in paragraph 6 of the immigration rules:
““Adequate” and “adequately” in relation to a maintenance and accommodation requirement means that, after income tax, national insurance contributions and housing costs have been deducted, there must be available to the person or family the level of income or funds that would be available to them if the person or family was in receipt of income support.”
26. Mr Ojo confirmed that the respondent accepts that the appellants can be adequately accommodated.
27. The sponsor relied on a P60 showing that his income for the tax year ending 5 April 2023 was £37,544.16. The sponsor submitted his HMRC annual accounts submissions showing that for the year ending 5 April 2024 his total income was £45,474.00 (£41,984 from employment and £3,490 from self-employment). It was the sponsor’s evidence that he stopped working for his previous employers on 21 February 2025. He now works as a self-employed taxi driver and his income was approximately the same as when he had been employed. The sponsor provided the following bank statements to demonstrate his current financial position:
• TSB Savings Account with a balance of £12,054.10 on 10 September 2025
• Monzo Personal Account Statement with a balance of £1,880.91 on 24 September 2025
• RBS bank account with a balance of £692.46 on 2 August 2025
• TSB Spend and Save Account with a balance of £352.23 on 7 January 2024
28. It was the sponsor’s evidence that he no longer uses his TSB Spend and Save account and that he regularly sends the appellants money.
29. I note that Mr Ojo did not cross examine the sponsor on his evidence relating to his finances or address me on them in his submissions. In any event, having reviewed his bank statements, other evidence pertaining to his financial circumstances and his evidence I am satisfied that his financial situation is as he claims.
30. The level of income support that would be available to the sponsor and the appellants for 2025/26 is £237.85 per week. I am satisfied that the sponsor has significantly more funds available to him than that and that therefore the appellants meet the maintenance requirements.
Conclusion
31. As I consider the relevant immigration rule to be met by the appellants I re-make the appeal by allowing the appellants’ appeals in accordance with TZ (Pakistan) and PG (India) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1109 under human rights grounds. There is no public interest in their exclusion.
Notice of Decision
32. The appellants appeals are allowed.

G. Loughran

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

17 November 2025