Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-002124

First-tier Tribunal No: EA/01153/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 14th of January 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RIMINGTON

Between

MALIK JAVED AKHTAR
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

ENTRY CLEARANCE OFFICER
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Litigant in person, sponsor in attendance
For the Respondent: Mr A Tan, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Manchester Civil Justice Centre on 14 November 2025

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant a Pakistan national born on 25th February 1979 appeals against the FtT determination of FtT Judge Smyth (the judge) dated 23rd April 2025 dismissing his appeal under the EEA Regulations 2016. The national identify card of the appellant gives his birth date as 10 October 1979.
2. The sponsor is said to be the appellant’s brother Pervez Akhter Malik who was granted settled status on 7th April 2021.
3. The decision under appeal dates from 9th September 2020.
4. The primary ground of appeal is procedural unfairness. As the judge stated at [6]- [7] of the determination
“6. I have before me a respondent’s bundle dated 6 Augst 2024, which pre-dates the Tribunal’s directions dated 10 January 2025, and even pre-dates the decision of Legal Officer Muringi regarding the timeliness of the appeal. While a copy of the appellant’s application was included in the bundle; there are no supporting documents. According to the respondent, “There are no retained documents on file for this appellant due to either no documents lodged by the appellant or document purging between the application and bundling stage.

7. I do not have before me any evidence from the appellant. In his notice of appeal, he listed a number of documents in section 3c that he intended to send but were not yet available. However, there is no indication before me that these were ever sent to the Tribunal and the respondent. The appellant has not submitted any other evidence in support of his appeal.”
5. The appellant asserts that he did submit a full bundle comprising 180 pages on 5th March 2025 and which was five days prior to the date of the determination. He asserts that the bundle was sent by email. A copy of the bundle was attached to the grounds to the Upper Tribunal, and this included the documentation said to be missing from the file. This included the sponsor’s witness statement, money transfer receipts, bank statements, an income and expenditure summary with supporting receipts, a letter from the Federal Board of Revenue, a letter from the PLRA, utility bills and other financial evidence. Thus, the appellant states that his assertion of dependency was rejected. This fundamentally prejudiced his right to a fair hearing.
6. It was also noted that the judge at [5] referred to the respondent complying with directions issued on 10th January 2025 by serving their bundle on 6th August 2024. The appellant asserted he had never received the respondent’s bundle. This issue was raised with the Tribunal in writing on 25th February 2025 and 27th February 2025, but this request was refused, and the appellant was directed to the Home Office, but the request was declined by the Home Office who stated that the email address did not match their records.
7. First his own bundle was not considered and secondly the appellant was not provided with the respondent’s bundle.
8. The appellant attached his email address in his appeal form which identified his registered email address ([u~5]@gmail.com) and the appellant used his current and active email address and received no indication that the email address used was unauthorised unverified or inconsistent with their records. Had there been any concerns it would have been reasonable and procedurally fair for the Tribunal to notify him and demand clarification. It was the respondent not the Tribunal which failed to serve the bundle owing to a mismatch in the records.
9. At the hearing before us we explained to the sponsor that we first had to decide whether there was an error of law in the decision. He confirmed that he could understand a limited amount of English. The sponsor asserted that he had never received the respondent’s bundle on behalf of the appellant.
10. Mr Tan relied on the Secretary of State’s rule 24 notice. In essence the Secretary of State did not accept that there was any error of law.
11. We confirmed at the hearing that we would specifically enquire as to the documents received by the FtT from the appellant.
12. In the appeal notice however the appellant confirms that in answer to the question ‘I, the appellant/representative give authorisation for my sponsor to receive information relating to my appeal if enquiring by phone or in writing,’ the appellant ticked the box ‘yes’ and the email address given was ([p~4]@gmail.com) That is different from the email address on the application which is ([p~5]@gmail.com).
13. In his response dated 4th September 2025 to the email direction given by the UT, the appellant maintains that his sponsor was not confident about technology and relied on others for assistance. In this case it is unclear why the appellant even put forward the sponsor’s email. We also note that again the appellant gave a reason outside the 21-day period given to him.
14. Having, however, specifically searched and scoured the FtT electronic files and having requested a UT technical assistant to establish precisely what documentation was filed with the FtT, we can locate no file from the appellant in the form asserted. Nothing was identified by the FtT judge, and nothing was located by us as having been filed with the FtT. We could not open the attachment to the copy of the said email with bundle included in the documents sent to the UT. The FtT cannot be criticised for documentation that was not forwarded to the FtT but only afterwards to the UT. There is evidence contrary to the appeal documentation that the FtT was corresponding with the appellant on [u~5]@gmail.com (notwithstanding that that was different from the email address on file) and there is no indication that any file would have been rejected having come from that email or another email address. The critical point would have been the appeal number.
15. That the Secretary of State and the Tribunal had different email addresses for the appellant would not have prevented the appellant from filing a bundle.
16. As noted in the grant of permission from UT Reeds she states, ‘there is evidence that demonstrates the respondent’s bundle was sent by post to the appellant via the sponsor’s address in Rochdale (bundle dated 6/8/2024).’ The appellant merely stated in his response to the directions that the sponsor was not served with the respondent’s bundle and that it ‘may have been lost in the postage’. Further merely because the respondent’s bundle had been served prior to the FtT directions does not indicate that there was procedural error. The respondent would have been aware that documentation would need to be filed following the filing of appeal.
17. It was the appellant’s responsibility to file the bundle on the FtT on from the evidence provided and the very thorough search of the file including the FtT file, the documentation was provided only with the UT bundle.
18. The decision of the FtT was, on the evidence provided, open to the FtT and discloses no procedural error and no material error of law. Simply dependence was not shown.
Notice of Decision
The FtT decision will stand and the appeal remains dismissed.

Helen Rimington

Judge of the Upper Tribunal Rimington
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

6th January 2026