Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-000596

First-tier Tribunal No: EA/01794/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

22nd July 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE JACKSON

Between

RUSECKI JAROSLAVAS
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Determined on the papers on 14 July 2025

DECISION AND REASONS
1. In a decision promulgated on 30 May 2025, I found an error of law in the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Isaacs promulgated on 13 December 2024, in which the Appellant’s appeal against the decision to refuse his application for leave under the EU Settlement Scheme (the “EUSS”) dated 16 August 2024 was dismissed. A copy of that decision is annexed to this one and the contents of which need not be repeated, save as to assist in the remaining issues.
2. The Appellant is a national of Lithuania, who claims to have entered the United Kingdom in 2006. His first application under the EUSS was refused on 22 August 2022 and his second application, made on 4 October 2022, was refused on 16 August 2024. This is the remaking of the Appellant’s appeal against that refusal.
3. The Respondent initially refused the application on the basis that although there was evidence of periodic residence in the United Kingdom between August 2013 and September 2023, it was insufficient to show the required five-year continuous period and insufficient to show the required six-months continuous residence in the United Kingdom prior to the specified date, 31 December 2020.
4. Further to directions issued in the error of law decision, the Appellant submitted further evidence of his residence in the United Kingdom, which included:
• Letter dated 9 June 2025 confirming an 11-year period of no claims discount from his car insurer;
• Letter dated 13 Jun 2025 from Rose confirming the Appellant’s employment between January 2007 and September 2009, and between August 2013 and October 2015;
• Bank statements for the period from January 2014 to January 2020.
5. The evidence previously before the Tribunal included an Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement dated 28 February 2023 (and rent increase letter); NI card; birth certificate from November 2014 for the Appellant’s child; Universal Credit correspondence and bank statements for the period April 2019 to December 2021 and for the period February 2022 to September 2022.
Relevant legal framework
6. The requirements for a grant of leave to remain under the EUSS are set out in Appendix EU to the Immigration Rules. So far as relevant to this appeal, paragraph EU11 sets out the requirements for indefinite leave to remain as a relevant EEA citizen, with condition 3 requiring a person to have completed a continuous qualifying period of five years without any supervening event. Paragraph EU14 sets out the requirements for limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, with condition 1 requiring a person to be a relevant EEA citizen and is not eligible under paragraph EU11 because they have not completed the continuous qualifying period.
7. A continuous qualifying period is defined in the Annex to Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules, which so far as relevant to this appeal is a period of residence in the United Kingdom which began before the Specified Date (31 December 2020) and continues at the date of application (subject to certain exceptions for absences and exclusion decisions which do not appear to be relevant to this Appellant) for a period of at least five years. For this Appellant, the five year’s continuous residence must therefore be five years up to 4 October 2022 (thus starting in October 2017), which covers a period beginning before 31 December 2020.
Findings and reasons
8. In accordance with the directions given in the error of law decision and prior to the hearing listed for 14 July 2025, the Respondent confirmed that having reviewed the further documents submitted by the Appellant, she was satisfied that the Appellant meets the required EUSS rules and invited the Upper Tribunal to allow the appeal. As a result, the hearing was vacated with this written decision to follow.
9. The Respondent very appropriately conceded that the Appellant met the requirements of Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules. On the basis of all of the available evidence, I would in any event have found that he met the requirements set in paragraph EU11. The available documentary evidence, in particular the bank statements, show regular transactions within the United Kingdom over an extended number of years since 2014. These, coupled with the evidence showing his residence here on more specific dates, including on the birth certificate, for employment and maintaining a lengthy period of car insurance here over 11 years; demonstrates on the balance of probabilities, that the Appellant has been continuously resident in the United Kingdom for a period of over five years up to the date of application (on 4 October 2022) and which began before 31 December 2020, the specified date. As such, his appeal succeeds under the EU Settlement Scheme rules as set out in Appendix EU.
Notice of Decision
For the reasons set out in the annexed decision, the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did involve the making of a material error of law, such that that decision was set aside.
The appeal is remade as follows:
The appeal is allowed under the EU Settlement Scheme Rules

G Jackson

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

14th July 2025

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-000596

First-tier Tribunal No: EA/01794/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

…………………………………

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE JACKSON

Between

RUSECKI JAROSLAVAS
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: In person
For the Respondent: Mr J Nappey

Heard at Field House on 20 May 2025

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant appeals with permission against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Isaacs promulgated on 13 December 2024, in which the Appellant’s appeal against the decision to refuse his application for leave under the EU Settlement Scheme (the “EUSS”) dated 16 August 2024 was dismissed.
2. The Appellant is a national of Lithuania, who claims to have first entered the United Kingdom in 2006. The Appellant first applied under the EUSS on 23 December 2020, which was refused on 22 August 2022. His second application was made on 4 October 2022, the refusal of which on 16 August 2024 is the subject of this appeal.
3. The Respondent refused the application the basis that although there was evidence of periodic residence in the United Kingdom between August 2013 and September 2023; it was insufficient to show the required five-year continuous period. The Appellant did not therefore meet the requirements for a grant of settled status. Further, there was insufficient evidence of the required six-months continuous residence in the United Kingdom prior to the specified date, 31 December 2020. The Respondent had made attempts to request further evidence, but nothing further was received.
4. Judge Isaacs dismissed the appeal on the papers in a decision promulgated on 13 December 2024, essentially on the basis that although there was reference to legible copies of documents being provided, no further evidence had in fact been provided and the Appellant had not addressed the issues about insufficient evidence.
Relevant legal framework
5. The requirements for a grant of leave to remain under the EUSS are set out in Appendix EU to the Immigration Rules. So far as relevant to this appeal, paragraph EU11 sets out the requirements for indefinite leave to remain as a relevant EEA citizen, with condition 3 requiring a person to have completed a continuous qualifying period of five years without any supervening event. Paragraph EU14 sets out the requirements for limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, with condition 1 requiring a person to be a relevant EEA citizen and is not eligible under paragraph EU11 because they have not completed the continuous qualifying period.
6. A continuous qualifying period is defined in the Annex to Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules, which so far as relevant to this appeal is a period of residence in the United Kingdom which began before the Specified Date (31 December 2020) and continues at the date of application (subject to certain exceptions for absences and exclusion decisions which do not appear to be relevant to this Appellant) for a period of at least five years. For this Appellant, the five year’s continuous residence must therefore be five years up to 4 October 2022 (thus starting in October 2017), which covers a period beginning before 31 December 2020.
The appeal
7. The Appellant appeals essentially on a procedural fairness ground, that he had submitted to the First-tier Tribunal with his appeal clearer copies of the bank statements sent initially with his application (but which were at least in part illegible) and these were not before the Judge deciding his appeal on the papers and therefore not taken into account.
8. At the hearing, the Appellant reiterated that he had lived in the United Kingdom since 2006 and had children here; but had some difficulties with paperwork due to personal circumstances in recent years. He confirmed that the additional documents resubmitted with his appeal to the Upper Tribunal had been sent to the First-tier Tribunal with his appeal form.
9. On behalf of the Respondent, Mr Nappey said that it was unclear exactly what had been sent in to whom or when; but it was accepted that the documents were not before the First-tier Tribunal Judge deciding the appeal. It was accepted that that raised a procedural fairness issue; including that the Judge failed to consider whether it was appropriate in circumstances where there were obviously documents missing to proceed to determine the appeal on the papers given that there was discretion to list the appeal for an oral hearing. The Respondent accepted that there was in these circumstances a material error of law in the decision of the First-tier Tribunal such that it should be set aside and heard de novo.
Decision and Reasons
10. In this case, the First-tier Tribunal erred in law as a matter of procedural fairness in proceeding to determine the appeal on the papers without relevant documents submitted by the Appellant being available to do so fairly. I indicated this to the parties at the hearing, with this written decision to follow.
11. At the hearing, both parties agreed that the appeal could be retained in the Upper Tribunal for re-making. The Appellant will have the opportunity to put in any further documents he wishes to rely on, in particular, to show the required five years’ continuous residence in the United Kingdom to support his application for settled status. The Respondent will consider any further evidence within 14 days and confirm whether this is sufficient to grant the Appellant either pre-settled status, or settled status under Appendix EU to the Immigration Rules.
12. The evidence already before the Upper Tribunal in the form of bank statements for the period April 2019 onwards shows regular activity in the United Kingdom by the Appellant for over six months prior to the specified date of 31 December 2020. Subject to any wider considerations or submissions from the Respondent, it is my preliminary view that that is likely to be sufficient to establish on the balance of probabilities that the Appellant meets the residence requirements for pre-settled status in accordance with paragraph EU14.
13. If the Respondent is able to grant settled status in accordance with paragraph EU11 upon consideration of any further evidence filed, then this appeal will come to an end in accordance with Regulation 13(3) of the Immigration (Citizens’ Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. If, however, the Respondent is only to grant pre-settled status in accordance with paragraph EU14 of Appendix EU, then in accordance with Regulation 13(4) of the same, the appeal will proceed unless the Appellant wishes to withdraw his appeal. If no status is granted to the Appellant, then the next hearing will proceed to consider the appeal in full.
Notice of Decision
The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did the making of a material error of law. As such it is necessary to set aside the decision.
I set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal.
Directions
1. The appeal to be relisted for a face-to-face hearing on the first available date after 7 July 2025 before UTJ Jackson, with a time estimate of 2 hours. The Appellant is at liberty to apply for this to be a remote video teams, with supporting evidence as to why that is needed.
2. The Appellant may file and serve any further evidence upon which he wishes to rely no later than 4pm on 18 June 2025.
3. The Respondent to set out her position on the appeal to the Appellant and the Upper Tribunal no later than 4pm, 14 days after service of any further evidence from the Appellant.

G Jackson

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

25th May 2025