UI-2024-005511

  • Case title:  
  • Appellant name:
  • Status of case: Unreported
  • Hearing date:
  • Promulgation date:
  • Publication date:
  • Last updated on:
  • Country:
  • Judges:

The decision



IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-005511
First-tier Tribunal No: EU/50702/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 3 February 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LANE


Between

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Appellant
and

AMANDA GRIMLEY
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Respondent


Representation:

For the Appellant: Ms Arif, Senior Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: Mr Jebb

Heard at Royal Courts of Justice (Belfast) on 27 January 2026


DECISION AND REASONS
1. I shall refer to the appellant as ‘the respondent’ and to the respondent as ‘the appellant’ as they respectively appeared before the First-tier Tribunal.
2. The appellant had appealed against a decision of the Secretary of State dated 26 January 2023 refusing her application under the EU Settlement Scheme for confirmation of her right to reside on the basis that she is the primary carer of her husband, Mr Marc Anthony Grimley, a British citizen. The First-tier Tribunal had allowed her appeal. The Secretary of State now appeals to the Upper Tribunal.
3. Granting permission to appeal, Upper Tribunal Judge Bulpitt wrote:
1. Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Farrelly allowed the appellant’s appeal against the respondent’s refusal of her application for settlement under the EUSS on the basis that the appellant met the eligibility requirements of paragraph EU14 of Appendix EU to the Immigration Rules. It is arguable that this conclusion was inconsistent with the Judge’s factual finding at [20] that the relevant British citizen would not be required to leave the United Kingdom, and inconsistent with the agreed fact (see [21]) that the appellant’s continuous qualifying residence did not begin prior to the specified date. The application for permission is therefore granted on the grounds submitted by the respondent.
2. There is an ambiguous reference at [23] to the respondent’s representative agreeing that the appellant meets the eligibility requirements of paragraph EU14, though this would be inconsistent with [11] where it is recorded that the representative relied on the decision and respondent’s review which unquestionably disputed this issue. This may not be of consequence given the correct terms of EU14 is a matter of law rather than a fact which can be agreed by consent. If there is to be argument about whether a concession was made by the presenting officer, a recording of the hearing will need to be obtained.
4. At the initial hearing, Mr Jebb, who appeared for the appellant, agreed that the First-tier Tribunal judge had erred in law as indicated in the grant of permission. Both he and Ms Arif, who appeared for the Secretary of State, asked that the First-tier Tribunal’s finding that the appellant is the primary carer of the her husband should be preserved.
5. I agree that the First-tier Tribunal erred in law and I set aside its decision. The decision will be remade in the First-tier Tribunal.

Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside. None of the findings of fact shall stand, save that the finding that the appellant is the primary carer of her husband, Mr Marc Anthony Grimley is preserved. The appeal is returned to the First-tier Tribunal for that Tribunal to remake the decision after a hearing.


C. N. Lane

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber


Dated: 27 January 2026