Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-000990
UI-2025-000991

First-tier Tribunal No: HU/58961/2023
HU/59040/2023
LH/06685/2024
LH/06686/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 13th of May 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KHAN

Between

SANTA GRACE ADOCH (1)
GABRIELLA LAKAREBAR (2)
(NO ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Appellants
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Johnson Okwereor, Litigant in Person
For the Respondent: Mr E Tufan, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 29 April 2025

DECISION AND REASONS
1. At the outset of the hearing Mr Tufan, on behalf of the Secretary of State, conceded the appeal. In the light of his concession, my reasons will be brief.
2. The first appellant is a citizen of Uganda. The second appellant is the first appellant’s daughter and dependant for the purposes of this appeal. She is also a citizen of Uganda.
3. The first appellant and the Mr Johnson Okwereor (‘the sponsor’) met in Uganda in May 2014 and were married in May 2018. Mr Okwereor attend the hearing on behalf of the appellants.
4. On 29 April 2023, the first appellant made an application for entry clearance to the UK under Appendix FM to the Immigration Rules on the basis of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) relating to private and family life with the sponsor and her child.
5. The respondent refused the application on 17 July 2023 on the basis that: (i) the first appellant did not meet the financial threshold of £22,400 through a combination of pension and cash savings and had not submitted the specified evidence in the form of bank accounts and a declaration from the account holder in accordance with paragraph EC-P.1.1(d) of Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules. Furthermore, the first appellant had not met the eligibility English Language requirement of paragraphs E-ECP.4.1 to 4.2 of the Immigration Rules. The refusal decision was maintained following a review on 15 March 2024, save that the respondent conceded that the first appellant had provided an IELTS certificate and had demonstrated that they had passed an English language test.
6. The first appellant appealed the respondent’s refusal to the First-tier Tribunal. The appeal came before Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Cohen (‘the judge’). By a decision dated 24 November 2024 (‘the Decision’) the judge dismissed the appeal against the respondent’s refusal to grant the first appellant leave to remain in the UK as a wife/partner of the sponsor under Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules.
7. Mr Tufan conceded the appeal on the basis that the judge had made several errors, at least one was material concerning the English language test, while others were careless. That said, it was important for the appellants to have confidence in the decision and the reasons given, particularly when unsuccessful. There was information in the bundle which the judge had not read, and the English language test was met. In this regard, paragraph [24] of the decision was clearly inconsistent with previous findings; paragraph [32] was an incomplete sentence, and it was unclear what the judge intended it to mean; paragraph [34] included a typo that should have read ‘appellants’ and not ‘appellant’. Finally, paragraph [9] was plainly wrong as the respondent had already conceded the matter during the review which material was in the case bundle.
8. Having considered the matter for myself, I agree with Mr Tufan that the judge’s decision involved the making of a material error of law. As a result, I set aside the first-tier Tribunal decision and allow the appeal.
9. In light of the error of law made and having heard submissions from both parties, I consider based on the principles in AEB v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWCA Civ 1512 and Begum (Remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 00046 (IAC) that the case should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal with no preserved findings, to be heard afresh by any judge other than Judge Cohen.
Notice of Decision
10. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal Judge involved the making of a material error of law and is set aside. The case is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard afresh.
K.A.Khan
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

07 May 2025