Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-001922

First-tier Tribunal No: EU/51699/2024
LE/05039/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 21 November 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KHAN

Between

CRISTINA ELENA-PRISECARU
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant before the FtT
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent before the FtT

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mrs C Nicholas of Counsel (Direct Access)
For the Respondent: Mr P Deller, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 17 November 2025

DECISION AND REASONS
Introduction
1. This is an appeal brought by the respondent, the Secretary of State for the Home Department (‘SSHD’), against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Buckwell, dated 11 March 2025. Permission to appeal was granted by First-tier Tribunal Judge Saffer on 30 April 2025.
Anonymity
2. No direction has been made previously, and there is no reason for one now.
Background
3. For the purposes of this decision, I have continued to refer to the parties as they were before the First-tier Tribunal.
4. The appellant is a citizen of Romania. She first entered the United Kingdom on or about 21 July 2018. Her application for leave to remain made on 30 November 2022 under the terms of the EU Settlement Scheme (‘EUSS’) was refused by the respondent on 6 February 2024. The respondent found that the appellant did not have an entitlement to either pre-settled or settled status under Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules. The respondent maintained that false documents had been utilised and, additionally, that absences from the UK broke the otherwise continuous qualifying period of residence.
5. Pursuant to the Immigration (Citizens’ Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, the appellant appealed the respondent’s refusal to the First-tier Tribunal. By a determination dated 11 March 2025, the appeal was allowed, following a hearing, by First-tier Tribunal Judge Buckwell (‘the judge’).
6. The First-tier Tribunal Judge found the appellant was not responsible for the false documents (Lloyds Bank PLC account statements) submitted and therefore her application should not fall for refusal with reference to suitability [31].
7. The judge further found that the appellant was a student attending University in Italy and that the duration of her absences on account of Covid-19, University requirements and significant medical issues were permissible [33]. He concluded that even though she entered the UK on 21 July 2018, the commencement of her claimed continuous residence in the UK should be considered from mid-July 2019 and therefore by the end of July 2024, she had spent a period of five years resident in the UK and was therefore entitled to settled status.
8. The Secretary of State for the Home Department appeals the decision of the First-tier Tribunal Judge.
9. The matter now comes before me to determine whether the First-tier Tribunal erred in law, and if so whether any such error was material and whether the decision of the First-tier Tribunal should be set aside.
10. The appellant and respondent were ably represented by Mrs Nicholas and Mr Deller, respectively. I am grateful to them for their very helpful submissions.
Grounds
11. The respondent brings one ground of appeal:
Making a material misdirection of law on any material matter: By this ground, the respondent avers that the judge incorrectly took the date of the hearing as the relevant date, instead of applying the specific requirements set out in EU 11 and EU 14 of Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules. This requires the calculation of an appellant’s continuous qualifying period (‘CQP’) to be assessed as of the date of application (30 November 2022). As a result, the respondent submits that the judge materially erred in finding that the appellant qualified for settled status under paragraph EU 11 of Appendix EU.
The relevant law.
12. The relevant provisions of Appendix EU – Immigration Rules are as follows:
EU 11 – Eligibility for Indefinite Leave to Remain (Settled Status)
‘The applicant meets the eligibility requirements for indefinite leave to remain under this Appendix where, at the date of application, they have completed a continuous qualifying period of five years’ residence in the UK and Islands.’
EU 14 – Eligibility for Limited Leave to Remain (Pre-Settled Status)
‘The applicant meets the eligibility requirements for limited leave to remain under this Appendix where , at the date of application, they are a relevant EEA citizen or family member and have completed a continuous qualifying period of residence of less than five years in the UK and Islands.’
Submissions
13. Mr Deller submitted that the judge had clearly made a material error of law in the application of EU 11 and EU 14 of Appendix EU. Even taking the starting date of the CQP as either mid 2018 or mid-July 2019 [35] the appellant had not completed five years residence in the UK as of the date of her application on 30 November 2022. At best, the appellant had completed approximately four years but less than five years. Therefore, the appellant was entitled to no more than pre-settled status under EU 14. The material error of law was the failure to apply the date of application under the Immigration Rules as the relevant cut off date for calculating the CQP. The Judge erred by continuing to count the CQP beyond the date of application to give the appellant over five years residence in the UK. That was plainly a material error of law. In the circumstances, Mr Deller said he was prepared to concede that based on the evidence before the judge, the appellant was eligible for pre-settled status but not settled status. He thought subject to what the appellant’s circumstances were since her last application, given the passage of time she would now be eligible to apply for settlement.
14. Mrs Nicholas on behalf of the appellant accepted the position set out by Mr Deller and therefore did not seek to defend the decision based on her Rule 24 response.

Decision on error of law
15. The failure of the judge to properly apply the ‘date of application’ provisions of EU 11 & EU 14 of Appendix EU regarding the correct cut off date to calculate the appellant’s CQP amounts to a clear error of law. Accordingly, the judge’s decision is set aside.
Remaking
16. The parties agreed that I proceed to remake the decision, making the following submissions. The facts were not in dispute; reliance was placed on the same evidence as before the First-tier Tribunal and the applicable Immigration Rules under Appendix EU remained the same. Mr Deller conceded that the appellant was entitled to pre-settled status under EU 14 but not settlement under EU 11 of Appendix EU.
Decision on Remaking
17. The undisputed facts are that the appellant entered the United Kingdom on or about 21 July 2018 and was dependent upon parental support from her father, who is resident in the UK with the appellant’s mother and the appellant’s minor sister. On or about 30 November 2022, the appellant made an application for leave to remain under the EU Settlement Scheme as a dependent family member which was refused by the respondent on 6 February 2024.
18. The First-tier Tribunal Judge found that the appellant had commenced her residence in the UK by 31 December 2020 and that commencement of her claimed CQP should be considered from mid-July 2019. The judge further found that the appellant’s absences from the UK were permissible under the EU Settlement Scheme.
19. It is clear on the facts that calculating the CQP from mid-July 2019 to the date of application on 30 November 2022 provides the appellant with less than five years and therefore she was not eligible for settlement as of the date of application. However, based on her accrued CQP, the appellant was eligible to be granted pre-settlement status as she had completed a CQP of less than five years in the UK and Islands.
20. Having considered all the relevant matters in the round, I am satisfied that the appellant is entitled to pre-settlement status but not settlement. Accordingly, the Secretary of States’ appeal is allowed, and I substitute a decision based on the concession made by Mr Deller that the appellant is eligible to be granted pre-settlement status.
Conclusions
The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error of law. The appeal is allowed.
I set aside the decision to be re-made.
I substitute a decision that the appellant is qualified and eligible to receive confirmation of her pre-settled status in the United Kingdom. Documentation should be issued to the appellant confirming her limited leave to remain.
No application for anonymity was made, and I see no reason to make such a decision.

19 November 2025 K.A Khan
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber