Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-000966

First-tier Tribunal No: EU/54631/2023 LE/02867/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

29th October 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HOFFMAN
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PARKES

Between

KRESHNIK SALLAHU
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr P Georget (of Counsel)
For the Respondent: Mr P Deller (Senior Home Office Presenting Officer)

Heard at Field House on 13 October 2025

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant is a citizen of Albania. He applied for leave to remain in the UK under the provisions of the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) on the basis of his marriage to Jelena Sallahu (the Sponsor) who has leave to remain in the UK under the EUSS. The application was refused for the reasons given in the Refusal Letter of the 20th of July 2023. The Appellant appealed against the refusal.
2. The appeal was heard by First-tier Tribunal Judge Lucas at Taylor House on the 10th of December 2024. The appeal was dismissed for the reasons given in the decision of the 16th of December 2024. Permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal was refused by the First-tier Tribunal but granted by the Upper Tribunal following submission of further grounds.
3. The Appellant's argument is that Judge Lucas did not provide sufficient reasons in the decision, specifically in respect of the Appellant's marriage interview and the claimed discrepancies with the Sponsor's interview.
4. For the Upper Tribunal hearing there was a composite bundle of 601 pages in pdf: page references in this decision are to the pdf page number. The Appellant attended with the Sponsor and some friends. The hearing was recorded and at the conclusion of the submissions the decision was reserved.
5. In addition to the Appellant's Grounds at page 8 Mr Georget submitted that the marriage interview was central and it had been dealt with shortly, referring to paragraphs 35 to 37 of the decision, page 18, it was not explained why weight was not placed on the Appellant's evidence. It was accepted that a reasons challenge faces a high bar but it was submitted that it was not possible to identify which issues were not problematic.
6. For the Respondent it was submitted that the decision was sustainable. It was accepted that the Judge did not dive deeply into the interview issue but, as maintained in the rule 24 response, the reasons given were sufficient and the flavour was adequate. The Refusal Letter had been summarised at paragraph 3 and the Judge was entitled to find that the original answers carried greater weight than the Appellant and the Sponsor explanations as set out in their witness statements and oral evidence.
7. The decision starts at page 15. The Respondent's case was summarised at paragraphs 3 to 5, page 16. The main paragraph in that regard is paragraph 3. The Judge referred to the interview that had taken place on the 2nd of June 2024 and summarised the topics which had caused the Respondent to decide that the marriage was not genuine on the basis of the differing answers provided by the Appellant and Sponsor about their relationship. The topics included the Sponsor's medication, place of birth, how they came to the UK, the number of the Appellant's previous applications, how they met and details of their life together, wedding and other matters.
8. The Appellant's case was summarised at paragraphs 6 to 14 and included reference to the Sponsor's witness statement of the 9th of January 2024 and brief summary of that. The hearing was dealt with at paragraphs 15 to 32. That Judge summarised the oral evidence the Appellant and the Sponsor gave. There were inconsistencies arising in the cross-examination of the Appellant and Sponsor set out at paragraphs 18, 19, 23, 26 and 27.
9. The findings of the Judge were at paragraphs 33 to 40. The grant of permission focussed on paragraphs 35 and 36. Had that been all that the Judge had said with regard to the interviews and inconsistencies then the Appellant's argument might have been stronger. However, the decision has to be read fairly and as a whole. The findings were in the context of the summary of the Refusal Letter at paragraph 3, the evidence set out in the paragraphs cited above and the other reasons provided. The other reasons included the discrepancies that arose in the evidence given at the hearing itself.
10. As the Refusal Letter dealt at some length with differences between the Appellant's and Sponsor's interviews, the focus was on those discrepancies. The Refusal Letter, having been referred to, was sufficiently summarised in paragraph 3 and did not need to be repeated, and the findings have to be read in that context. Paragraph 35 referred to “the discrepancies highlighted”, paragraph 3 did not need specific reference, and the Refusal Letter itself was referred to in paragraph 36.
11. Paragraph 36 itself was not a finding that there was not a genuine marriage, it was an observation that that the differences identified undermined the assertion of a genuine relationship. Paragraph 37 was to the effect that the Judge considered the later answers given by the Appellant and Sponsor in their witness statements but found that the answers given at the time were to be preferred. In other words the earlier answers reflected the true position.
12. Other evidence was considered in paragraphs 38 and 40. The Judge had added in paragraph 40 that the marriage was said to have been maintained for over 5/6 years but that could not explain the inconsistencies in their evidence about what had happened the day before the hearing. In the context of the differences in the interviews it was found that the marriage was one of convenience.
13. The reference to paragraphs 35 and 36 alone is to take the paragraphs out of context and requires the decision to be compartmentally and not as a whole. It is not a fair reflection of the overall reasoning of the Judge as set out in the decision which dealt with evidence fairly and succinctly. The Judge was entitled on the evidence to find that the marriage was not genuine and subsisting.
Notice of Decision
14. The decision of Judge Lucas did not contain any errors of law and stands as the final disposal of the Appellant's appeal.

Judge Parkes

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

15th October 2025

© Crown Copyright 2025