Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case Nos: UI-2025-001624
UI-2025-001625, UI-2025-001626
& UI-2025-001627
First-tier Tribunal Nos: EU/51176/2024
EU/51179/2024, EU/51180/2024
& EU/51182/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 12th March 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KEBEDE

Between

MOHAMMED BAKRI AHMED MAHMOUD
AHMAD BAKRI AHMAD MAHMOUD
REFAL BAKRI AHMAD MAHMOUD
RENAD BAKRI AHMAD MAHMOUD
(No Anonymity Order made)
Appellants
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellants: In Person (unrepresented)
For the Respondent: Ms C Newton, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Manchester Civil Justice Centre on 10 March 2026

DECISION AND REASONS

1. The appellants appeal, with permission, against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing their appeals against the respondent’s decision to refuse their applications made under the EU Settlement Agreement (EUSS).

2. The appellants are Norwegian nationals and are siblings, born on 28 May 2007, 22 February 2017, 1 April 2011 and 22 July 2013 respectively. They applied, on 23 March 2023, for leave to remain under the EUSS, as family members of a relevant EEA citizen, their mother, Howida Salih Mohamed Ahmed, the sponsor, who is a national of Norway.

3. The appellants’ applications were refused on 30 January 2024, on the grounds that they did not meet the requirements for pre-settled status or settled status under Appendix EU. That was because their EEA citizen family member did not meet the definition of a ‘relevant EEA citizen’ as set out in Annex 1 of Appendix EU and was thus not able to sponsor a family member applying to the EUSS. More specifically, the respondent explained that:

“On 15 January 2024 we asked your EEA sponsor for evidence that they were an EEA national by 11pm on 31 December 2020, in order for them to meet the definition of a relevant EEA citizen set out in Annex 1 of Appendix EU to the Immigration Rules, but you have not provided any evidence to confirm this.

Therefore, it has been decided that, on the basis of the information and evidence currently available, your EEA citizen family member’s pre-settled status was granted in error.

As your EEA citizen family member does not currently meet the definition of a relevant EEA citizen as set out in Annex 1 of Appendix EU, this means that they are not able to sponsor a family member applying to the EU Settlement Scheme.”

4. It is relevant, at this point, to set out why the respondent did not accept that the sponsor was a relevant EEA citizen. As explained in a skeleton argument produced by the respondent on 12 December 2025 in response to directions issued by the Upper Tribunal in these proceedings, and further explained by Ms Newton at the hearing before me, the sponsor had applied on 16 May 2021 for leave to remain under Appendix EU as a relevant EEA citizen and had provided her Norwegian passport which was valid until 24 February 2031, and was issued on 25 February 2021. The respondent at that point granted the sponsor pre-settled status under the EUSS in what is now stated was an erroneous decision, whereby the caseworker overlooked the fact that a passport issued in 2021 could not be satisfactory evidence of Norwegian citizenship having been held before 31 December 2020. Ms Newton explained that that error was discovered when the appellants made their applications on 23 March 2023 and checks were made on their sponsor’s status, and that as a result several letters were sent to the sponsor to provide evidence of the date when she acquired her Norwegian nationality, but none was provided.

5. The appellants gave notice of appeal against the respondent’s decision and the appeals came before First-tier Tribunal Judge Williams on 7 February 2025. The sponsor and the lead appellant appeared before the judge in person, without legal representation. The relevant issue before the judge was identified as being whether the sponsor was an EEA national on the specified date of 23:00 on 31st December 2020. The sponsor produced her Norwegian passport which was issued on 25 February 2021 and confirmed that that was her first Norwegian passport. Her evidence was that she could not recall when she became a Norwegian citizen and that it was either in 2020 or 2021. The judge noted that there was no other evidence aside from the passport to show that the sponsor was a national of Norway. The judge noted further that at least one of the appellants’ passports showed that they were a citizen of Norway prior to the specified date, but he could not be satisfied that that nationality was derived from their mother rather than their father who was also a Norwegian citizen. The judge concluded that, in the absence of any evidence of when the appellants’ mother obtained her Norwegian citizenship, he could not find that the appellants meet the requirements of the Rules. The judge was accordingly not satisfied that the appellants met the requirements for leave under Appendix EU and he dismissed the appeals, in a decision promulgated on 11 February 2025.

6. The appellants sought permission to appeal the decision of the First-tier Tribunal on grounds prepared in the sponsor’s name, as follows:

“The reason of this request is to consider that applicant's father has Norwegian passport on 16 January 2020, before the date and family/ Child applicants are living in Liverpool, England. The eldest child MOHAMED BAKRI AHMAD MAHMOUD got offer from 3 Universities in Liverpool. They have settled life pattern, school friends, please reconsider the other facts. The applicants requesting for mercy.”

7. The First-tier Tribunal refused permission to appeal, but permission was subsequently granted on a renewed application to the Upper Tribunal, on the following basis:

“3. The sponsor is the appellants’ mother and she has been granted pre-settled status which has not been cancelled, curtailed or invalidated. It is for the respondent to show that this was granted in error. This matter does not appear to be addressed in the decision.
4. There was evidence to show that the one of the appellants was an EEA citizen by January 2020. The sponsor claimed the appellants’ father was a relevant EEA citizen.
5. The grounds disclose an arguable error of law. “

8. The matter was listed for an error of law hearing in the Upper Tribunal on 4 November 2025 but was adjourned on the grounds that the Home Office Presenting Officer had not managed to establish the basis of the grant of leave to the sponsor and required more time to do so. Directions were issued by the Upper Tribunal on 19 November 2025, to be complied with by 4pm on 25 November 2025, as follows:

“The appellants must provide

(i) a chronology of when the sponsor entered the UK and how long she remained;
(ii) whether she was present in the UK on 31st December 2020 and evidence of the same;
(iii) on what basis and when she made an application for leave to remain;
(iv) a copy of the leave she was granted.

The respondent should also provide

(i) information on the basis and date of application by the sponsor for leave in the UK:
(ii) the basis on which the applicant was granted leave and the details of the same:
(iii) a copy of the leave granted.”

9. The matter then came before the Upper Tribunal on 12 January 2026, where it was noted that there had been no compliance with the directions by the appellant. There was an initial response to directions from the respondent dated 12 December 2025 and a skeleton argument from the respondent dated 7 January 2026. At the hearing, the Home Office Presenting Officer produced and relied upon two undated letters from the respondent, addressed to the sponsor, in which it was made clear that it was considered that the grant of pre-settled status granted to her was in error and that she would be unable to rely on the grant to apply for settled status, or to sponsor family members to join her. The second letter was said to have been sent to the sponsor the day before the refusal decisions were sent to the appellants. The hearing was adjourned, at the request of the appellants, in order for them to have a fair opportunity to consider the letters. The Tribunal issued directions for the appellants again, as follows:

“We direct that within 14 days of this order being issued, the appellants must provide:

(i) a chronology of when the sponsor entered the UK and how long she remained;
(ii) whether she was present in the UK on 31st December 2020 and evidence of the same;
(iii) on what basis and when she made an application for leave to remain;
(iv) a copy of the leave she was granted.”

10. The matter was then listed for hearing on 10 March 2026. On 3 March 2026 the sponsor requested a further adjournment on the grounds that she had requested official written confirmation from the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration (UDI) of the exact date of acceptance and confirmation of her residence status before 31 December 2020 and was awaiting a response. She stated that her application for residence was submitted and accepted by the UDI in September 2020, before the specified date, but the formal decision letter was only issued in January 2021 due to administrative processing times and delays arising during the COVID-19 pandemic. The adjournment request was refused on the grounds that the matter of the sponsor’s EEA citizenship had been ongoing for some time and there had been ample opportunity for the required evidence to be produced.

Hearing and submissions

11. The matter then came before me on 10 March 2026. There was no further adjournment application and the appeal proceeded.

12. The main appellant, Ahmad Bakri Ahmad Mahmoud, (“the appellant”) appeared before me with the sponsor, his mother. Although this was an error of law hearing, it seemed to me that there were some areas which required clarification, particularly those covered by the directions previously made by the Tribunal, with which there had been no compliance. I considered that such clarification may benefit the appellants and that it was therefore in their interests for further enquiries to be made notwithstanding the nature of the appeals before me. Ms Newton was content for me to ask some questions by way of clarification. Accordingly I heard some evidence from the appellant and sponsor. The appellant did not require an interpreter, but his mother did, and she gave evidence before me through the official interpreter in the Arabic language.

13. When asked when she came to the UK, the sponsor said that she came most recently in 2023 but that she had been coming in and out of the UK many times prior to that. She said that the appellants’ father was living in Norway, although he came in and out of the UK many times. He had no status in the UK. I asked the sponsor if they were separated and her response was that she was single, on her own. I asked the sponsor how the appellants came to be staying in the UK, when their applications were made at a time when they were outside the UK, and she said that they simply entered the UK as they had European passports. In response to Ms Newton’s questions, the sponsor confirmed again that she last entered the UK in 2023 and said that she could not remember when she made her application under the EUSS. In response to my question to the appellant as to why no evidence had been produced of his mother’s Norwegian nationality showing when it was granted, despite the many requests made, he said that he thought the information would be with the Home Office and that they had the burden of proof. He said that there had been an administrative error on the part of the Home Office.

14. Ms Newton then made submissions before me. She submitted that when the appellants made their applications, the Home Office looked again at the sponsor’s leave and realised that there had been an error in the grant of leave to the sponsor. The Home Office had therefore written to the sponsor asking for information and evidence as to when she acquired her Norwegian nationality and had made it clear to her that the grant of leave previously made to her had been in error. Ms Newton submitted that numerous letters were sent to the sponsor and examples were provided of what evidence she could provide to show that she was in the UK on the specified date. However no evidence was provided. Ms Newton explained that it was not the policy of the respondent to revoke EUSS status in such circumstances, but rather that the person would be told that they could not sponsor other family members, which was what occurred in this case. Ms Newton referred to the sponsor’s evidence before the Tribunal, that she did not reside here until 2023, and submitted that she could not, in the circumstances, meet the definition of a ‘relevant EEA citizen. The appellants’ applications could not succeed, therefore, as the sponsor had not shown that she met the definition of a ‘relevant EEA citizen’. The burden of proof was upon the appellants to provide the required evidence to show that she was a relevant EEA citizen but had failed to discharge that burden. The First-tier Tribunal Judge had therefore directed himself appropriately and had not erred in law in finding that the definition of a ‘relevant EEA citizen’ was not met.

15. The appellant made submissions in response. It was agreed that he would be the spokesperson for all the appellants. He relied upon the Withdrawal Agreement whereby there should be a non-discriminatory process, and submitted that there had been incompetence by the Home Office which had then been used against them. There was a legitimate expectation arising from the grant of leave to his mother and the decision could not be reversed. The leave was given to her lawfully and they should not be penalised because of an administrative error. His family had made life decisions on that basis. He submitted that there was authority for the proposition that a public authority could not reverse a decision which had been relied upon. His family should not bear the consequences of the Home Office’s failure.

Discussion

16. Permission was granted in this case on the grounds that the judge had not properly addressed, in his decision, the fact that the sponsor had been granted pre-settled status which had not been cancelled, curtailed or invalidated and whether the respondent had shown that that was granted in error. The appellant, at the hearing, also relied upon the error, submitting that he and his siblings should not be penalised for the respondent having made a decision on the basis of an administrative error and that it was unfair for the respondent to reverse that decision. Ms Newton has since explained that it is not the policy of the respondent to revoke or curtail EUSS status in such circumstances and that it was not possible to do so under the EUSS.

17. In any event, whilst it is the case that the judge did not directly address the issue of the respondent’s error, that is essentially immaterial, given that the relevant issue was whether the sponsor was a ‘relevant EEA citizen’ in accordance with the definition in Annex 1 of Appendix EU to the immigration rules. That definition required that she be an EEA citizen resident in the UK for a continuous qualifying period which began before the specified date. As stated in the respondent’s skeleton argument of 7 January 20206 at [7], the grant of leave to the sponsor did not oust the need for the appellants to meet the requirements of the rules. The rules were not shown to be met and the Withdrawal Agreement made no provision for the appellants as they were not resident in the United Kingdom before 31 December 2020, and the sponsor had not demonstrated that she had been so resident as a citizen of Norway before that date notwithstanding her subsequent acquisition of a passport in 2021.

18. That was precisely the issue which the judge addressed. As he found, there was no evidence other than the sponsor’s passport which showed that she was a national of Norway, and that passport, issued on 25 February 2021, did not show that she had acquired her Norwegian citizenship prior to 31 December 2020, as was required under the immigration rules. He noted that the sponsor could not confirm when she had become a Norwegian citizen, and said it was either in 2020 or 2021. He specifically considered and addressed the fact that one of the appellants’ passports had been issued in January 2020, but properly noted that that was not evidence of the sponsor having obtained her Norwegian nationality prior to that date, given that the appellants’ father was a Norwegian national and the appellant’s nationality could have been obtained through his father. Enquiries subsequently made at the hearing before me clarified that the appellants’ father could not have been considered as a ‘relevant EEA citizen’ for the purposes of the appellants’ applications, since he was not resident in the UK.

19. In so far as the appellant and sponsor now claim that enquiries have been made of the Norwegian authorities for confirmation of when the citizenship was granted, that was not the case at the time of the hearing before the judge. No evidence has been provided of such enquiries having been made since then, in any event, despite the absence of such evidence being mentioned in the decision refusing the recent adjournment request. There is no justification for the sponsor and appellants being given further time to produce such evidence, nor any unfairness in them not being given further time to do so, particularly given the speculative nature of the outcome of such enquiries. It is clear that there have been numerous opportunities given to the sponsor to provide evidence to show when she became a Norwegian citizen and more than ample time to do so. The letters produced by the respondent at the hearing on 12 January 2026 show that the sponsor was informed of the error in the grant of her pre-settled status as long ago as January 2024 and that she was given an opportunity at that stage to provide evidence confirming that she was an EEA citizen by 31 December 2020. She was advised about the consequences of not doing so. The second letter made clear that she had not provided any evidence and she was advised again that her pre-settled status had been granted in error and would not be extended beyond the expiry date. The sponsor was also advised again in that letter that she would not be able to sponsor a family member wishing to apply to the EUSS. Ms Newton submitted that there were further occasions upon which the sponsor was chased by the respondent for evidence of her Norwegian citizenship and was advised as to the type of evidence required, but no response was ever received. Further, directions were made by the Upper Tribunal following two adjourned hearings for the appellant to provide a chronology of when his mother entered the UK and how long she remained, whether she was present on 31 December 2020 and on what basis she made her application for leave to remain, but there was no compliance with the directions, despite reminders being sent by the Tribunal prior to the present hearing. The appellant’s answer to that non-compliance, before me, was simply that the Home Office bore the burden of proof and should have had the documents themselves.

20. In the circumstances the judge was fully and properly entitled to reach the conclusions that he did. There was nothing further in the appellant’s and sponsor’s evidence before me which could have materially impacted upon the judge’s decision or suggested that a different decision could have been reached had there been further enquiries made. Not only was there no evidence of the sponsor having been granted Norwegian citizenship prior to 31 December 2020, but the evidence she gave at the hearing before me suggested that she had not been resident in the UK at the specified date in any event. As the First-tier Tribunal Judge observed at [11], I also found the sponsor’s evidence to be vague and unreliable. I reject the suggestion made by the appellant that he had been wrongly and unfairly penalised on the basis of an administrative error by the Home Office, when there had been ample opportunity for him and his mother to resolve the situation by providing relevant evidence and by complying with the Tribunal’s directions. The judge’s decision was accordingly fully and properly in accordance with the relevant immigration rules and the Withdrawal Agreement. It was entirely open to the judge, on the evidence available to him, to dismiss the appeals on the basis that he did.

Notice of Decision

21. The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve a material error on a point of law requiring it to be set aside. The decision to dismiss the appeals stands.

Signed: S Kebede
Upper Tribunal Judge Kebede

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

11 March 2026