Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-000322

First-tier Tribunal Nos: EU/57386/2023
LE/03381/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

19th May 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PERKINS
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HANBURY

Between

ANTON PALUSHI
(no anonymity order made)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: The appellant did not appear and was not represented
For the Respondent: Mrs S Nwachuku, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 28 April 2025

DECISION AND REASONS
(extempore)
1. In this appeal the Secretary of State was represented by Mrs S Nwachuku, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer. The appellant did not appear. We are entirely satisfied that the appellant knows about the hearing because he had asked for it to be adjourned. I dealt with the application in writing on Friday (28 April) and refused the application explaining, as was appropriate given the application that was made, that there was no reason for the appellant’s wife to be here for the Upper Tribunal to determine if the First-tier had erred in law. The appellant received that because I found this morning, I think it was sent at about 8:20 a.m., a request from the appellant for an explanation for his wife not having to attend. I did not respond to that because I expected him to appear before us.
2. I have looked at the history in the case. There is nothing that I said that could possibly cause him to feel that he was not obliged to attend this morning. He knew about the hearing and he did not attend. As the appellant is a litigant in person I took the rather unusual step of asking our clerk to contact him directly if that could be done. Mrs Nwachuku had an up-to-date telephone number according to the Home Office records and our clerk reported that he tried twice to speak to the appellant but on each occasion the telephone was answered by a machine. The simple fact is that the appellant knows about the hearing and has provided no explanation for his absence. We were dealing with the case at very approximately 11 o’clock in the morning. In the circumstances we decided that we would go on and deal with it on the papers before us having heard submissions from Mrs Nwachuku.
3. It is an appeal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing the appellant’s appeal against a decision under the EU Regulations refusing him leave to remain as the husband of a national of Bulgaria. The difficulty the appellant faced is that he was not able to show that his marriage was a genuine marriage. The Home Office had proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal on an earlier occasion that the marriage was one of convenience and that finding was upheld by the Upper Tribunal in a decision of Upper Tribunal Judge Gill on 28 November 2023. It was therefore for the First-tier Tribunal to follow that decision unless good reasons had been given for reaching a different conclusion. It is quite plain from the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Lawrence that he understood his obligations and directed himself correctly. He decided, having heard the case, that there were no proper reasons to depart from existing findings and dismissed the appeal.
4. The appellant, who was represented before the First-tier Tribunal, settled his own grounds of appeal. They are in almost narrative form and permission was granted. It was clearly a concern of the judge granting permission that important documentation might not have been considered and if that had been made out it might have been a matter of very great concern indeed. Mrs Nwachuku argued that there was nothing wrong with the decision at all. She said it was plain from looking at the decision that the judge had recognised that the decision of Judge Gill was a necessary starting point and the judge had conspicuously shown a willingness to depart from those findings if there was evidence that permitted it. The judge had listed the evidence that was before him and did not make findings specifically on every point but had said that he had read all the evidence and had made clear, Mrs Nwachuku said, perfectly permissible findings from the evidence as a whole and had reached a reasoned conclusion that the existing finding that the marriage was one of convenience should be maintained.
5. With respect to Mrs Nwachuku, we find that she is right and that her submission goes right to the core of the matter. The parties know why they lost, there was nothing wrong with the procedure, the judge directed himself correctly and gave reasons for his decision. There might be room in an ideal world to say that the judge could have said a little bit more about the matters given in evidence but that is not at all the same as saying the judge had done anything wrong in considering the evidence in the way that he did and we certainly do not accept that there is any error of law in the determination because of deficient reasoning or procedural unfairness which was how Mrs Nwachuku categorised the errors identified in the grounds of appeal.
6. Putting it all together we have no hesitation in saying from the material before us we are wholly unpersuaded that the judge erred in any way. We dismiss the appellant’s appeal and uphold the decision of the First-tier Tribunal.
Notice of Decision
7. The appellant’s appeal is dismissed.

Jonathan Perkins

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

15 May 2025