Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-000434

First-tier Tribunal No: EU/55599/2023
& LE/03539/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 5th of March 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HIRST
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WALSH

Between

CATHERINE CECELIA FERNANDEZ
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: In person via CVP from St. Vincent
For the Respondent: Ms. S. McKenzie, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 28 January 2026

DECISION AND REASONS
1. This is the resumed re-making hearing under section 12 (2) (b) (ii) of the Tribunals, Courts, and Enforcement Act 2007 of a First-tier Tribunal decision dated 6 November 2025 set aside by the Upper Tribunal in a decision promulgated on 22 May 2025. In that decision the Upper Tribunal issued directions for the appeal to be remade at the Upper Tribunal on 20 June 2025.
2. We were unable to finalise the appeal following that hearing as it became clear in the course of our deliberations that we needed further information from the appellant before we could make our decision as explained below. We therefore adjourned the hearing with directions.
Background
3. The appellant is a citizen of St. Vincent and the Netherlands. She is married to a British citizen and claims to have become resident in the UK in 2007. On 7 June 2021, the appellant submitted an application for settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme on the basis of having 5 years continuous residence in the UK between 2007 and 2014. The respondent refused her claim on 9 August 2023.
4. In the respondent’s refusal letter, the appellant was advised that the information she provided in support of her application was insufficient to show that she met the eligibility requirements for either settled status under rule EU11 or pre-settled status under rule EU14. The supporting documents provided were a letter from HMRC dated 12 September 2012 notifying the appellant there was a gap in her NIC contributions for the 2010-2011 tax year; a P45 from Monsoon dated 25 April 2014; and a pay slip dated 29 November 2013.
5. The refusal letter also stated that efforts were made unsuccessfully to contact the appellant between 13 June and 24 July 2023 in order obtain additional information in support of her claim.
6. With the refusal letter was a table of “footprint” details between 2013-2019 indicating the appellant had not met the eligibility criteria. The copy in the bundle on file at the time of the June 2025 hearing was cut off and we were unclear as to the source of the document or why the dates did not include those relied on by the appellant.
7. The respondent’s review dated 21 July 2024 maintained the reasons and decision for refusal. The appellant had by then submitted one page of a seven page letter from HMRC dated 12 March 2024 which did not satisfy the respondent that the appellant met the eligibility requirements for settled status.
8. The appellant’s appeal was dealt with by the FtT on the papers on 10 October 2024 and ultimately set aside on the basis that the FtT had failed to take account of the 12 March letter and the appellant’s submission she was in the process of seeking additional documentation from HMRC.
9. In the error of law decision setting aside the FtT decision, Upper Tribunal Judge Neilson directed a remaking hearing before the Upper Tribunal on 20 June 2025, and gave directions for filing further evidence/calling witnesses.
10. Two documents were subsequently filed electronically by the appellant. The first, filed on 12 June 2025, was a seven-page document which appeared to be a screenshot of the 12 March 2024 HMRC letter (the ‘National Insurance Record’). The second document, filed on 16 June 2025, was a single page document which appeared to be page 7 of 7 of an HMRC letter (‘HMRC 7’).
11. At the hearing on 20 June 2025 Ms. McKenzie told us that, contrary to the directions, the HMRC documents were not served on the respondent. We provided the documents to Ms. McKenzie and gave her time to consider them before continuing to hear evidence and submissions. In deliberations, however it became apparent that the documents were still incomplete and there was lack of clarity around what they were intended to evidence. We therefore decided it was necessary to adjourn for further and complete documentation to be provided.
12. In adjourning the hearing we gave clear directions as to the documents to be filed both by the appellant and the respondent as we also sought further information as to the “footprint” document on which the respondent relied. The intention of setting out such specific instructions was to ensure that all of the evidence necessary to conclude the appeal would be with the Tribunal and both parties.
13. For ease of reference those directions are set out here:
The appellant must by 4pm on 29 July 2025 file electronically on CE-file the following documents in legible form:
a. the whole of the HMRC letter dated 12 March 2024
b. the whole of the document that the page filed on 16 June 2025 comes from
c. a brief written explanation of what each document is

The copies/scans of these documents must be provided with the pages in order (that is page 1, page 2 etc) and must be clearly legible

The Tribunal shall send to the respondent by 5 August 2025 the single page “HMRC 7” document filed on 16 June 2025, and any documents filed in response to the directions in [23] above.

The respondent must by 19 August 2025 file electronically on CE-file and serve on the appellant a complete and legible copy of the document at page 113 of the bundle, together with any review of the appeal following receipt of the appellant’s documents.
14. On 29 July 2025, two documents were emailed to the Tribunal. The first was an email from the appellant’s husband, Wendell Browne. The second was the 8-page letter from HMRC dated 22 May 2025 setting out the appellant’s national insurance contributions in table format between 2006 to 2024. No statement explaining the documents was filed.
15. On 20 August 2025, Ms. McKenzie wrote to the Tribunal requesting an extension to file the documentation directed. This was granted.
16. On 21 August 2025, the Tribunal received the respondent’s review appended to which was a “footprint” tracker used by the DWP. The review explains that the “footprint tracker” is a tool used by decision makers assessing EUSS applications, using national insurance numbers. If a match is not found through these checks applicants are asked to provide supporting evidence.
17. The “footprint tracker” appended to the review is outside the qualifying period relied on by the appellant (that is 2007 to 2014). According to the “Process level memorandum of understanding between the Home Office and the Department for Work and Pensions,” a link to which was provided in the respondents review of August 2025, the Application Processing Interface (API) enables the Home Office to check the applicant’s activity in the UK using HMRC and DWP data to support a residency assessment. Matching data covers the current tax year or in the 6 years previous.
18. The respondent’s review submits that the Tribunal should make an adverse credibility findings as the appellant has not provided evidence, such as bank statements, to substantiate her claim that she worked continuously in the United Kingdom since 2007. Further, it states that the appellant claimed in documentation before the FtT that she received a pension which cannot be right as the HMRC document submitted states that appellant has 8 years qualifying period whereas she would need 10 to receive a pension. The HMRC 7 documents in any event do not demonstrate that the appellant was in the United Kingdom for an entire given year. The review maintained that the appellant still failed to discharge the burden of demonstrating her residence in the United Kingdom for the continuous qualifying period.
19. The review further stated that, contrary to our directions, the appellant had not sent the additional documents to the respondent.
20. On 2 September 2025 the appellant filed a response to the respondent’s review. She argued that the automated check relied on by the respondent is not determinative of her claim and she should be afforded the opportunity to address issues arising therefrom. She does not accept that she informed the FtT she was in receipt of pension credit and had previously written to the tribunal to correct this error. With respect to the respondent’s submissions on the HMRC 7 document and gaps in her NIC contributions, she provides three potential explanations: a) that she was in part-time work that did not meet the earnings threshold b)she had short periods of unemployment during this time c) an administrative error. She maintains that the NI records are indicative of presence in the UK. The appellant stated that she was currently trying to obtain a more detailed statement of her NIC contributions from HMRC and also her Lloyds bank statements which require her to physically go into the bank and may take some time to provide.
21. The resumed remaking was listed before us on 5 November 2025. Unfortunately, notice was not served by email on the appellant who was out of the country. Further, the matter was not put into Ms. McKenzie’s diary and she too was unavailable. Hence the matter was adjourned again and relisted for 28 January 2026.
22. On 13 January 2026, the appellant requested to attend the hearing remotely as she was in St. Vincent and the Grenadines. She also sought to file “bank statements payslips” between 2007 to 2014.
23. We issued directions in response on 23 January 2025 granting the application for remote attendance and directing the bank statements to be sent in chronological and paginated order together with a short written statement explaining the delay in filing the bank statements and whether the statements are complete for that period and if not why not. The appellant was directed to send a copy to the respondent at the a specific Home Office email address provided in the directions.
24. It appears that the Tribunal’s administrative email inviting her to send the bank statements reached the appellant before our directions as the bank statements were filed the same day.
25. The PDF of bank statements consists of 386 pages. It covers the period 21 August 2007 to 19 May 2014, however the bundle of statements is duplicated so in fact the statements total 195 pages. There was no explanatory statement filed by the appellant prior to the hearing.
26. On 26 January 2026, the appellant requested for her niece Claudette Bramley to act has her McKenzie friend during the hearing. This application was granted.
The Hearing – Preliminary Matters
27. Ms. Fernandez joined the hearing remotely from St. Vincent. Ms. Bramley also attended remotely from a different location. We confirmed with Ms. Fernandez and Ms. Bramley that the CVP connection was working properly. We reminded Ms. Bramley of the ambit of the role of a McKenzie friend which she confirmed she understood.
28. When confirming with the parties which documents they had received, Ms McKenzie informed us that she had not been provided with the Lloyds bank statements. The appellant said that she had sent them to the email address provided in the directions we made on 23 January 2026. It was unclear what had transpired but given the potential significance of the bank statements, we sent the bank statements to Ms. McKenzie directly and adjourned briefly to enable her to consider them. This was the third time the respondent had not been served documents by the appellant.
29. On resuming the hearing, Ms. McKenzie objected to the admission of the bank statements on the basis that the appellant had provided no valid reason for the delay in filing this evidence. She also submitted that without an expert assessment to determine whether the listed transactions were UK based, it was difficult to respond properly. Ms. McKenzie repeated the submission that appellant’s credibility is undermined by her assertion in the FtT that she was receiving a pension which was not possible.
30. Ms. McKenzie’s initial view was that the transactions in the bank statements did not necessarily evidence the use of the associated bank card in the United Kingdom. In the event that we admitted the bank statements, she would seek a short adjournment for the bank statements to be considered by those with relevant expertise in the Home Office.
31. In response, the appellant said she had initially been told by the bank that she could not access her bank records as far back as 2007. It was only recently, when she attended her bank, that she was shown how she could download the statements herself which is how they have come to be generated and filed with the Tribunal. She stated that the bank statements demonstrate her monthly salary coming into her account every month she was employed between 2007 to 2014. The appellant repeated her explanation regarding the error by the FtT and her claiming pension credit. She said she had tried to get copies of her payslips from Monsoon but this has not been possible.
32. We accepted that the failed service of the bank statements on the respondent put the respondent in a very difficult position, particularly given the extent of those statements. It is right to acknowledge the significant delay in the appellant providing her bank statements given the multiple hearings in this case. In the hearing before us on 20 June 2025, the appellant told us that she had sent the Lloyd’s bank statements to the FtT but had not retained a copy. We have not been able to confirm whether or not the FtT received or retained the bank statements. The decision of the FtT says that she did not provide the FtT any documents to support her appeal.
33. In deciding whether to admit the bank statements, we had regard to the overriding objective in the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008/2698 (Rule 2) and reminded ourselves of our duties to litigants in person set out in the Equal Treatment Bench Book.
34. Having considered the submissions of Ms McKenzie and the appellant we decided to admit the bank statements. We did so for the following reasons. Firstly, Ms McKenzie did not dispute the authenticity of the bank statements; her challenge was directed at the transactions they recorded. We therefore concluded that any doubt about the transactions could be dealt with by Ms. McKenzie in cross-examination. Secondly, the appellant stated in her September 2025 response that she was in the process of obtaining the statements and we accept that at that time she was taking steps to secure them. Thirdly, the bank statements were potentially of crucial significance to the appellant’s claim and we bear in mind that notwithstanding the strong encouragement she had had to secure evidence to support her claim, she is a litigant in person with the challenges that status presents. We therefore concluded it was in the interests of justice to admit the bank statements.
Evidence and Submissions
35. We heard substantive evidence and submissions at the hearing on 20 June 2025 and on 28 January 2026 which are summarised below.
20 June 2025
36. We asked the appellant to explain the absence of a witness statement from her husband and the lack of any documentation other than that previously provided to the Home Office and the screenshots of HMRC records she had sent to the Tribunal the previous day.
37. The appellant told us that it had been very difficult for her has she had had major breast reconstructive surgery and had written many letters to explain the situation. She said most of the bills and expenses were in her husband’s name and trying to find documents to establish her residency had been challenging. The appellant said she had lived in the United Kingdom between 2007 and 2014 when her husband developed cancer.
38. As it had been accepted that the appellant was resident in the United Kingdom February 2012 to September 2012; August 2013 to February 2013 and September 2022 to March 2023; we asked her whether she wished to say anything regarding the periods falling outside those accepted dates. The appellant told us the national insurance documentation shows that she continuously worked during those years but she does not have the employment records to show that. She tried to access the relevant documents from her previous employer but it was problematic. She spent hours with HMRC trying to get the documents she filed. She said she only sent the first page initially because she thought the rest of the document was not relevant. When she was asked for the remaining seven pages she could not get her hands on the document and went back to the HMRC who then sent the document which turned up a week before the hearing.
39. We reminded the appellant that she needed to show residence in this country for five continuous years without having been away for 6 months or more. The appellant again told us that she had been employed between 2007 to 2014, firstly with Marks and Spencers and then with Monsoon. She was paid directly into her own bank account, the statements of which she said were the first documents she sent to the FtT in August 2023. She said she didn’t know if she could confirm that, she thought the documents might still be on her husband’s laptop.
40. Responding to a question from Ms. McKenzie, the appellant said she did not know why she did not keep copies of the documents sent to the FtT, she figured everything was on file and the only document she needed to provide was from HMRC.
41. Asked by Ms. McKenzie about her whereabouts between February 2014 and September 2022, the appellant said she would have been in and out of the UK. Her husband was ill and they went back to the Caribbean with periods in the Netherlands and in the UK. Prior to her surgery in 2022, she was in and out of the UK but mostly in the UK. The appellant said that in 2020 she went to the Caribbean for longer than planned because of Covid. After she and her husband retired (post 2014) they travelled between places. She travelled on her Dutch passport and believes she her passport would have been stamped entering St. Vincent. Ms. McKenzie was not able to assist with whether the Home Office had made enquiries as to her travel history.
42. The appellant was asked about the gap in her national insurance contributions for 2010-2011 which appears on the HMRC NIC document and what Ms. McKenzie took to be a three year gap between 2011 and 2014 on the other HMRC document. The appellant said that there was a payment of £47.55 owing for 2010-2011 to complete her contributions but she worked that year and continuously every year between 2007 to 2014. She could not explain the apparent gap. She speculated that she might have been working fewer hours.
43. The appellant repeated that she had lived in the United Kingdom continuously between 2007 and 2014 until her husband became ill and she left work to care for him. They had lived off of his salary and pension. She did not believe they went to the Caribbean between 2007 and 2014 except for vacation. She does go regularly to the Netherlands because her son lives there.
44. When asked again why her husband had not provided evidence in support of her residence, and we clarified that could have been by a witness statement, Ms. Fernandez said that must have been overlooked.
45. In her submissions, Ms. McKenzie relied on the respondent’s refusal letter. She drew our attention to the number of occasions on which Ms. Fernandez has been advised of the need to provide further documentary evidence to prove her claim. Ms McKenzie did not accept that the HMRC evidence the appellant filed just prior to the hearing satisfied that evidential burden. She argued that in fact the documents suggest that she had not been working continuously as claimed. Ms. McKenzie submitted that the appellant had failed to demonstrate that she had been resident in the United Kingdom for five continuous years and invited us to dismiss her appeal.
46. The appellant argued that the HMRC documents she provided do in fact evidence that she worked continuously between 2007 and 2014. The £47.55 owing on national insurance contributions for 2010-2011 is not evidence that she was not present in the United Kingdom. The appellant told us that she had not kept records as she did not think she would have to demonstrate her residence as she had lived and worked as a European citizen. Had she realised that she would need to do so, she said she would have applied for a British passport sooner as she is eligible. She said it had been difficult finding documentation because of a house move and believed the HMRC information would be enough. The appellant told us she did not think there was any more she could do. She said if she realised, she could have got evidence from her husband. She told us she is doing this on her own though her niece got a lawyer to assist her a year previously to advise her on how to make the application. She told us the process had been very trying and stressful.
28 January 2026
47. Having admitted the bank statements, we noted to the appellant that the month of April 2010 was missing from the bundle. She initially thought we meant that her salary deposit was missing for April 2010 and explained in that year she had taken some unpaid leave as her sister’s husband was dying. We clarified that in fact the whole statement for April 2010 was missing.
48. We directed the appellant’ attention to the fact that there are very full bank statements up to March 2010 but then no statement at all for April 2010, and only three transactions listed in May 2010 one of which is a deposit of £213 on 13 May 2010 from “Stepping Out.” We observed that there appeared to be no transactions in the United Kingdom between the end of March and a deposit of £400 from Woolwich on 22 September 2010.
49. The appellant told us the “Stepping Out” deposit would have been from her sister’s boutique in St. Vincent. The appellant was not able to recall whether the deposit on 22 September was made by bank transfer or in person.
50. The appellant said that she spent between four to five months with her sister in St. Vincent but would have been back in the UK working at Monsoon in September. She could not explain why the statement for April 2010 was missing. She said she had downloaded the documents and her son put them into a PDF and emailed it to the Tribunal. If there was a month missing it was because she missed putting it in the bundle her son uploaded.
51. Ms. McKenzie asked the appellant more about the deposit into her account from Stepping Out. The appellant stated that it may have been a deposit from her sister for her to do some shopping as she would buy things for her in the UK and bring them to St. Vincent when she visited. The appellant could not explain why it does not appear as an international transaction if it had come from St. Vincent.
52. We explained to the appellant the reason we were looking closely at the gaps in her bank transactions and the missing statement in April is in order to understand the extent of the period of time she was away with her sister and whether she can demonstrate that she was not absent for six months or more.
53. The appellant told us that it was only when she looked at her bank statements that she remembered she had taken a period of unpaid leave at that time. She thought it was later in 2012. She thought it may have been May 2010 when her brother-in-law passed away and she stayed for the funeral. She told us she could not have stayed for more than 5 months. The bank statement that do not reflect deposits from Monsoon will reflect the period of her unpaid leave.
54. In her submissions, Ms. McKenzie re-stated her concerns about the bank statements, raising doubts as to the appellant’s credibility, for example given the Stepping Out does not reflect an international transaction. Ms. McKenzie submitted that the bank accounts do not demonstrate that the appellant has been in the United Kingdom for 5 continuous years and invited us to dismiss her appeal.
55. The appellant told us that she believed had done all she could to demonstrate that she has in fact been five consecutive years, asking us to allow her appeal.
Discussion and Findings
56. The appellant applied for settled status in the United Kingdom under the EU Settlement Scheme as an EEA citizen (the Netherlands) on the basis of 5 years continuous residence in the United Kingdom. The requirements for settled status are set out in Appendix EU (EU 11) of the Immigration Rules.
57. To satisfy the requirements the appellant must prove that it is more likely than not that she has resided in the United Kingdom for a five continuous years and was resident in the UK for at least six months in any 12 year period.
58. We set out the history in full above as it is important to demonstrate the number of times the appellant has been advised that she must provide additional evidence to satisfy her claim.
59. Having taken full account of her status as a litigant in person, we were careful to afford her every opportunity to provide the documentary evidence to prove her case and assist her in understanding what documents were required and why they were important.
60. However notwithstanding those efforts, we find that the evidence provided by the appellant remains insufficient to show that she was resident in the United Kingdom for at least six months in any 12 month period for five continuous years.
61. The bank statements provided by the appellant contain most months between August 2007 to February 2014. Missing from the bundle are the months April 2010, October and December 2012, and May 2013. We accept that the monthly deposits from Marks and Spencers between August 2007 and January 2008 and from Monsoon between May 2008 to March 2010 and October 2010 to February 2014 are salary payments indicating the appellant was present in the UK during those months.
62. We find that the bank statements do evidence the appellant’s continuous residence in the UK between August 2007 and March 2010 and October 2010 to February 2014. However, without the bank statement from April 2010 and/or the appellant being able to confirm how the deposit on 22 September 2010 was made, the transactions between 31 March 2010 and 7 October 2010 represent a period of just over six months for which there is no evidence that the appellant was resident in the United Kingdom.
63. We gave the appellant the opportunity during the hearing to look for the April 2010 bank statement. We also invited Ms. Bramley to assist the appellant, but Ms. Bramley had been sent the same bundle of bank statements that were before us and was in a different location to the appellant. The appellant was unable to locate the April 2010 bank statement.
64. Given the history of the case as set out above, the appellant would have been in no doubt about the importance of ensuring that the bank statement evidence was complete. The directions we issued on 23 January 2026, which she said she received, were a further reminder as we directed her to file a statement confirming whether or not the statements covered the whole period (2007 to 2014) and if not why not. However the appellant did not comply with that direction.
65. We find that the appellant has not provided a consistent or reasonable explanation for her whereabouts in 2010. At the hearing on 20 June 2025, she told us that she had lived and worked continuously in the United Kingdom between 2007 and 2014 and did not travel to the Caribbean except for holiday. In her response to the appellant’s review she offered three possible explanations to account for the deficit in her national insurance contributions, none of which included her prolonged stay in St. Vincent in 2010.
66. The appellant told us in the resumed hearing that it was not until she reviewed the bank statements that she remembered the period of her stay in St. Vincent was in 2010. We do not accept that explanation. We bear in mind that fifteen years has passed, however, the death of her brother-in-law would have been a significant event as would her extended stay in St. Vincent. Given the repeated advice provided to the appellant about the necessity to account for her period of residence in the United Kingdom, it is reasonable to expect the appellant to diligently review her travel history during the relevant period.
67. For the avoidance of doubt we have not factored into our decision the reference in the FtT decision to that appellant claiming pension credit as we accept the appellant’s explanation that is was an error by the FtT which she quickly corrected.
68. We have considered the email sent by the appellant’s husband, Wendell Browne. Mr. Browne’s email confirms that the appellant came to live with him in the UK in 2007 and that “everything”, which we take to be household bills, was in his name. Significantly, Mr. Browne does not say that the appellant has lived in the United Kingdom for five continuous years or provide any information at all about the periods during which she or they were in the United Kingdom or abroad. Mr. Browne’s email is therefore not evidence capable of supporting the appellant’s continuous residency. He did not provide a statement or give oral evidence to the Tribunal in the appeal.
69. In our judgment, it could not have been clearer to the appellant what was required of her to satisfy the eligibility requirements for settled status. She has been given guidance and multiple opportunities to cure the deficiencies in her evidence. She told us that she has had the assistance of a lawyer, her niece and her son.
70. The appellant did not ask us to adjourn the appeal again for her to obtain the missing bank statements or provide further evidence. Her repeated submission was that she had done all she could and needed to do. It would not, in any event, be in the interests of justice to adjourn again, given the history of this case, including the appellant’s repeated failure to comply with directions or retain essential documents.
71. Accordingly, we find that the appellant has failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that she has been resident in the United Kingdom for at least six months in a 12 year period for five continuous years. We therefore dismiss her appeal.

Notice of Decision
72. The appellant’s appeal is dismissed.

Martha Walsh

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

1 March 2026