Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER

First-tier Tribunal No: UI-2024-005051
EA/02891/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 24th of June 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE McWILLIAM
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DAVIES
Between

Rajwinder Kaur

(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)

Appellant
and

The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms S Saifolahi, Counsel instructed by Riverdale Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms A Nolan, Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 22 May 2025

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant is a national of India. Her date of birth is 4 August 1985
2. The appellant was granted permission by the FtT (Judge Murray) to appeal against the decision of the FtT ( Judge Hussain) to dismiss her appeal against the decision of the SSHD on 11 March 2021 to refuse her application for a EEA family permit. Judge Hussain considered the appeal on the papers at the request of the appellant.
3. We heard submissions from the parties. There are a number of grounds of appeal. It is not necessary for us to engage with all of them. We find that the judge erred in respect of the ground identified as “E”.
4. We find that the judge materially erred. In the decision under appeal there was reference to an application for a visit visa having been refused in February 2020. It was said that in that application the appellant said that she was supported by her husband which is not consistent with her assertion to be single. The SSHD did not produce this decision. The judge attached weight to the inconsistency and it was clearly material to his decision (see [15]). A decision has been produced, however, this is dated 28 August 2019 and does not make reference to the appellant having said that she was supported by her husband. The SSHD has not complied with Rule 23 (2)(e) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014. It was incumbent on the SSHD to produce the 2020 decision should they wish to rely on it. Ms Nolan relied on Lata (FtT: principal controversial issues) [2023] UKUT 163 to support that there is no error. We do not find that the case assists the SSHD. While we appreciate that the appellant did not engage with the issue in her witness statement and she could have requested an oral hearing so that the sponsor could attend and give evidence, Lata does not concern the issue of the production of a document relied on by the SSHD in an entry clearance case and Rule 23 (2)(e). The rule is unambiguous and it does not allow for exception. The judge erred in relying on what was said about the 2020 decision in the absence of document having been produced.
5. The FtT materially erred. We set aside the decision to dismiss the appellant’s appeal. On the basis that the error concerns an issue of fairness, properly applying AEB v SSHD [2022] EWCA 1512, we remitted the appeal to the FtT for a de novo hearing.

Joanna McWilliam

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

29 May 2025