Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM
CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-001616

First-tier Tribunal No: EU/57728/2023
LE/03685/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 25 July 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RIMINGTON
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE JARVIS

Between

CATHERINE LULU FRANCIS
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: No representation
For the Respondent: Mr S. Walker, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 11 July 2025

DECISION AND REASONS
Introduction
1. The Appellant appeals against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Hussain (hereafter “the Judge”), promulgated on 15 December 2024. Permission was granted by the Upper Tribunal on 16 May 2025.
2. Upper Tribunal Judge Rastogi decided that it was arguable that the Judge had not given sufficient reasons for dismissing the Appellant’s appeal by reference to some of the documentary evidence in the Respondent’s bundle.
Relevant background
3. The Appellant is a national of Norway who applied for indefinite permission to stay in United Kingdom under Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules on 26 July 2023. On 27 November 2023 the Respondent refused the application predominantly on the basis that although some periods of residence in the United Kingdom between 2010 - 2013, 2014 - 2016 and 2017 - April 2023 were accepted, the decision-maker concluded that the evidence was insufficient to show that the Appellant had resided in the United Kingdom for a continuous qualifying period.
4. Ultimately the Respondent asserted that there were gaps in the evidence of the Appellant’s residence in the UK of more than six months between October 2018 to June 2019 and August 2019 to October 2023. The Respondent also recorded that the Appellant had been contacted before the decision was made but the further evidence provided by the Appellant was insufficient to show that she was in fact residing in the UK during the relevant periods.
5. The Appellant appealed against the decision under The Immigration (Citizens’ Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 and requested that the Tribunal consider the matter on the papers.
The decision of the Judge
6. In the decision, the Judge rehearsed the general submissions given by the Appellant in her appeal reasons document at §§11 to 12 and then at §13, noted that although those representations appeared to address the reasons for refusal the Appellant nonetheless had failed to provide “hard evidence” of living continuously in the United Kingdom with residence starting before the specified date (31 December 2020).
7. The Judge reflected on the fact that the Appellant had not taken part in the proceedings and that if she had done so she me may have been able to provide further clarification. The Judge went on at §14 to observe that the Appellant could have provided a record of her employment history from HMRC.
8. The Judge therefore went on to conclude that the Appellant had not provided sufficient evidence to show that she qualified for pre-settled status or settlement under the rules.
The error of law hearing
9. The Appellant attended the error of law hearing but did not have legal representation. Preliminarily Mr Walker helpfully indicated that the Appellant had provided further evidence which was later served by email on the Upper Tribunal.
10. We formally note, for completeness, that the Appellant provided an opening statement; a statement of ‘attempts to obtain supporting evidence’ (dated 11 July 2025) and a witness statement of the same date.
11. In respect of the error of law appeal, Mr Walker preliminarily indicated that he accepted that the Judge had materially erred by failing to give sufficient reasons for rejecting the documentary evidence provided by the Appellant.
12. We took the view that this concession was properly made. It is clear from the totality of the documentary evidence before the Judge that there was evidence capable of showing that the Appellant had been resident in United Kingdom for over five years inclusive of the specified date of 31 December 2020. For instance, we note the letter from Nayan Bhatt, landlord, (at page 28 of the consolidated Upper Tribunal bundle), dated 21 August 2023, which asserts that the Appellant was a tenant between 29 June 2018 and the date of that letter.
13. We also note the written representations made by the Appellant in which she explained why this additional evidence was not provided with the application and furthermore explaining why her previous employer (Sunny Arts Centre) would not provide her with a P45.
14. Having accepted Mr Walker’s concession we found that the Judge had materially erred in law and set aside his decision. Furthermore, we decided that the substantive appeal could be reheard in the Upper Tribunal as the factual issue in the appeal was a relatively narrow one. There was no objection from the parties to the Tribunal considering the substantive appeal on the same day.
The remaking hearing
15. Again, preliminarily, Mr Walker indicated that on the totality of the evidence the Respondent now accepted that the Appellant satisfied the requirements for continuous qualifying residence starting prior to 31 December 2020 and lasting for at least five years.
16. For completeness, we asked the Appellant a few questions in order to better understand the period between March 2022 (when the Appellant appeared to have stopped working for Sunny Arts Centre) and 26 July 2023 when she made the application for permission to stay.
17. The Appellant told the Tribunal that she had stopped working for Sunny Arts Centre because she felt harassed and that they had not paid her for overtime carried out, so she left to try to find another job. The Appellant also stated that she had been unable to find employment during the period but that her family helped her with her day-to-day expenses during that time.
18. We note that this oral evidence is not entirely consistent with the content of the Appellant’s witness statement in which she states that she worked under a zero hours contract with Sunny Arts Centre from December 2017 to March 2024 as an architecture teacher but we have borne in mind that the Respondent conceded the factual matrix of the case and the Appellant was not subject to cross-examination about this. We therefore decided that it would not be fair to take the point against her.
19. Therefore, for the reasons we have given, we find that the evidence is sufficient on the balance of probabilities, not least on the basis that she continued to pay rent during the relevant period, to show that the Appellant was continuously resident (as defined in Annex 1 to Appendix EU) for a period starting prior to 31 December 2020 and to the date of application; she therefore meets the requirements for limited leave to remain under EU 14.
20. We also conclude that the evidence is sufficient to show that the Appellant resided in the United Kingdom continuously for a five-year period at the date of the application encompassing the specified date of 31 December 2020 and therefore meets the requirements for indefinite leave to remain under EU 11.

Notice of Decision
We decided to set aside the decision of the Judge on the basis of a material error of law.
In remaking the decision, we allowed the appeal on the basis that the Respondent’s decision is not in accordance with the residence scheme Immigration Rules, applying reg. 8(3)(b) of The Immigration (Citizens’ Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.

I P Jarvis

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

18 July 2025