Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-001688
First-tier Tribunal: HU/52130/2024
LH/00244/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 17 June 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RIMINGTON
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE J F W PHILLIPS

Between

DERRICK MWANGI
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: In person
For the Respondent: Ms S Rushforth, Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Cardiff Civil Justice Centre on 21 May 2026

DECISION AND REASONS
1. This is the remaking of a decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 24 January 2025. The Appellant was granted permission to appeal on 9 April 2025 and on 23 October 2025 we found that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of a material error of law and retained the matter for remaking in the Upper Tribunal with no findings of fact preserved. We gave the following directions
By 30 November 2025 the Appellant must provide a written statement with supporting evidence confirming

(a) The nationality of his claimed partner Louise Edginton
(b) Whether his relationship with his claimed partner is subsisting
(c) The nationality of his child Malaika
(d) Whether Malaika lives with the Appellant and, if not, details of his parental involvement
(e) Details of his life in the United Kingdom including education and employment

By 30 November 2025 the Appellant must provide a written statement from Louise Edginton and any other witnesses that he intends to give evidence of the nature and subsistence of his relationship with Louse and Malaika.

By 31 December 2025 the Respondent is directed to consider any additional evidence provided and is at liberty to provide a written review.
2. The Appellant has sought to comply with those directions but there have clearly been some difficulties in the mechanics of compliance with documents having been sent to the Tribunal by email and perhaps not reaching the Respondent and documents having then been copied by the Appellant to MyHMCTS, the First-tier Tribunal system. Indeed, the Appellant uploaded no less than 60 separate documents to MyHMCTS on 28 January 2026.
3. At the hearing before us Ms Rushforth had not seen the documents uploaded. Having taken a few minutes to consider those documents Ms Rushforth conceded the appeal.
Decision
4. Both on the basis of Ms Rushforth’s concession and our assessment of the facts we allow this appeal. The Appellant is a citizen of Kenya who asserts, that he shares a protected family life with his partner and child and having been in the United Kingdom continuously since November 2005 (aged 14) that he also has a protected private life.
5. In the first place the Appellant does not meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules because this application was made some 6 months after his existing leave to remain had expired (see below). He therefore could not meet the eligibility immigration status requirement E-LTRP.2.2(b). The appeal must therefore be decided by reference to Article 8 outside the rules.
6. We accept that the Appellant has lived in the United Kingdom continuously since his arrival as a child in 2005 as recorded by the original First-tier Tribunal decision of Judge Osborne in 2009. He held discretionary leave to remain continuously from 20 January 2012 to 20 April 2022. He attempted to make an in-time application for further leave to remain by first making a claim for a fee waiver on 27 March 2022 on the grounds of destitution, but this was rejected on 30 May 2022. His renewed application for fee waiver, now out of time, was made on 14 June 2022 and was accepted.
7. The application now under appeal followed the fee waiver and was made on 30 November 2022 on the basis of compassionate grounds and his family life with Louise Edginton and their daughter Malaika. Prior to refusal of the application the Appellant had submitted the short form birth certificate of Ms Edginton and the long form birth certificate of Malaika. The application was refused on 26 February 2024. The refusal decision shows a significant number of documents were considered including various letters indicating that the Appellant and Ms Edginton lived at the same address. The application was refused because the Appellant did not meet the eligibility immigration status requirement and also because the Respondent was not satisfied that he met the eligibility relationship requirement because he had not shown either that his partner Ms Edginton was British or that their relationship was genuine and subsisting. Further the Respondent was not satisfied that the Appellant’s child was a British citizen or that the Appellant had an active role in the child’s upbringing. The rejection of these relationships also caused the Article 8 application to fail.
8. Having considered all of the evidence now put forward by the Appellant we are satisfied firstly that he has lived in the United Kingdom for an uninterrupted period in excess of 20 years and during this period held leave to remain for more than 10 years. Secondly, we have considered the witness statements of the Appellant and Ms Edington, and we accept that theirs is a genuine and subsisting relationship which has continued since 2021 and that they have lived together as a family since 2022. The evidence from Ms Edginton and the Appellant in this respect is unchallenged and supported by a wealth of documentation. Thirdly we are satisfied that Ms Edginton is a British born UK citizen. Her evidence in this respect is unchallenged, but we also note that she was born in Swindon hospital and every indication is that her parents are British and that Ms Edginton has not travelled and never held a passport. Fourthly we are satisfied that Malaika is the child of the Appellant and Ms Edginton and that she is a UK citizen by descent through her mother and as such is a ‘qualifying child’. Again, this is not challenged. Finally, we are satisfied on the evidence before us that the Appellant has a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with Malaika and that Malaika lives with the Appellant and Ms Edginton in a family unit.
9. Taking account of all of the above we are satisfied that the Appellant shares a protected family life with Ms Edington and their child Malaika, that Ms Edginton is a ‘qualifying partner’ and their relationship was formed in 2021 when the Appellant was lawfully present in the United Kingdom and that in accordance with section 117B(6) Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 the public interest does not require the Appellant’s removal.
Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal having been set aside we remake the decision and we allow this appeal.

Judge J F W Phillips
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal

3 June 2026