Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-002144
First-tier Tribunal No: EA/03783/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 31st March 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LODATO

Between

ABDUL SAMI
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Unrepresented
For the Respondent: Ms Simbi, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Birmingham Civil Justice Centre on 20 March 2026

DECISION AND REASONS
Introduction and Background
1. The appellant appeals with permission against the decision, dated 4 February 2025, of a judge of the First-tier Tribunal (‘the judge’) to dismiss the appeal under the European Union Settlement Scheme (‘EUSS’).
2. There was a single interpretative legal question lying at the heart of the proceedings before the First-tier Tribunal: does the spouse of the mother of a relevant EEA citizen, namely a stepfather, fall within the definition of a parent for the purposes of Appendix EU (Family Permit) of the relevant Immigration Rules. The judge found that such a relationship was not embraced by the definition found in the rules. In his single ground of appeal to the Upper Tribunal against that decision, he argued through his sponsoring stepdaughter that the judge’s interpretation was wrong in law.

Appeal to the Upper Tribunal
3. At the error of law hearing, I heard oral submissions from both parties. Ms Patel, the appellant’s sponsoring stepdaughter, ably presented the arguments in support of the appeal. I address any submissions of significance in the discussion section below.
Legal Framework
4. Ms Simbi, for the respondent, agreed that I should consider the version of the Immigration Rules in place when the application was made, in August 2023. Where relevant, Appendix EU (Family Permit) provides as follows:
FP6. (1) The applicant meets the eligibility requirements for an entry clearance to be granted under this Appendix in the form of an EU Settlement Scheme Family Permit, where the entry clearance officer is satisfied that at the date of application:

(a) The applicant is not a British citizen;
(b) The applicant is a family member of a relevant EEA citizen;
(c) The relevant EEA citizen is resident in the UK or will be travelling to the UK with the applicant within six months of the date of application;
(d) The applicant will be accompanying the relevant EEA citizen to the UK (or joining them in the UK) within six months of the date of application; and
(e) The applicant (“A”) is not the spouse, civil partner or durable partner of a relevant EEA citizen (“B”) where a spouse, civil partner or durable partner of A or B has been granted an entry clearance under this Appendix, immediately before or since the specified date held a valid document in that capacity issued under the EEA Regulations or has been granted leave to enter or remain in the UK in that capacity under or outside the Immigration Rules.

[…]
5. The key terms in the above provision are defined in Annex 1. Family Member of an EEA citizen includes:
[…]

(d) the child or dependent parent of a relevant EEA citizen, and the family relationship:
(i) existed before the specified date (unless, in the case of a child, the person was born after that date, was adopted after that date in accordance with a relevant adoption decision or after that date became a child within the meaning of that entry in this table on the basis of one of sub-paragraphs (a)(iii) to (a)(xi) of that entry);
and
(ii) continues to exist at the date of application; or
(e) the child or dependent parent of the spouse or civil partner of a relevant EEA citizen, as described in sub-paragraph (a) above, and:
(i) the family relationship of the child or dependent parent to the spouse or civil partner existed before the specified date (unless, in the case of a child, the person was born after that date, was adopted after that date in accordance with a relevant adoption decision or after that date became a child within the meaning of that entry in this table on the basis of one of sub-paragraphs (a)(iii) to (a)(xi) of that entry);
and
(ii) all the family relationships continue to exist at the date of application;
or
(f) a person who the entry clearance officer is satisfied by evidence provided by the person that they would, if they had made a valid application under Appendix EU to these Rules before 1 July 2021, have been granted (as the case may be) indefinite leave to enter under paragraph EU2 of that Appendix or limited leave to enter under paragraph EU3 and that leave would not have lapsed or been cancelled, curtailed, revoked or invalidated before the date of application under this Appendix (and, in respect of that application, the requirements in paragraph FP6(1)(c) and (d) of this Appendix do not apply):
(i) as a family member who has retained the right of residence by virtue of a relationship with a relevant EEA citizen (as defined in Annex 1 to Appendix EU);
or
(ii) on the basis that condition 6 of paragraph EU11 of Appendix EU is met, or
[…]
6. “Dependent parent” is defined, where relevant, as:
(a) the direct relative in the ascending line of a relevant EEA citizen (or, as the case may be, of a qualifying British citizen) or of their spouse or civil partner; and

[…]

in addition:
(a) ‘direct relative in the ascending line’ includes:
(i) a grandparent or great-grandparent; and
(ii) an adoptive parent of an adopted child; and
(b) ‘spouse or civil partner’ means (as the case may be) the person described in sub-paragraph (a)(i) or (a)(ii) of the entry for ‘family member of a qualifying British citizen’ in this table or in sub-paragraph (a) of the entry for ‘family member of a relevant EEA citizen’ in this table; and (c) in respect of the reference in the first sub-paragraph (c) in this entry to the spouse, civil partner or durable partner of the applicant, the entry for (as the case may be) ‘spouse’, ‘civil partner’ or ‘durable partner’ in this table applies, except that in the applicable entry ‘applicant’ is to be substituted for ‘relevant EEA citizen’
Discussion
7. The judge’s primary findings in resolving the central interpretative question come at [14]-[16] of his decision:
[14] The material issue before me is whether the rules allow for the relationship of step parent to be read into the word parent. The rules expressly do not provide for such a relationship in such words. The phrase step-parent does not appear in the rules.

[15] For example, in the case of a dependant child, they may be dependant upon the spouse (or durable partner) of their parent, as sponsor and relevant EEA citizen. That in technical terms is a step parent, in all but name. Therefore where the rules anticipate such a relationship being eligible it defines it as a spouse or durable partner of the parent.

[16] In the case of a ‘parent’ this is not defined within the definitions. However, on the basis that the rules anticipate adoption as a scenario, I interpret parent in this context to be an individual who is named on the birth certificate of a child, or to have acquired parental rights by establishing a biological parental relationship, or the acquisition of parental rights by way of adoption (or other legal order). This much is clear from the definitions of a child within the rules. Non [sic] of these scenarios apply in the instant case.
8. I am in broad agreement with the judge’s analysis of what the plain words of the applicable Immigration Rules mean. It would strain the natural meaning of the definitional words in Appendix EU (Family Permit) to conclude that “the direct relative in the ascending line” embraces a stepparent. It would have presented no difficulty for the drafter to have included the spouse or civil partner of such a direct relative. That this term has not been widened in this way counts heavily against the proposition that such a widening should be inferred. Such widening language was used in the very same section of the very same definition, but in relation to the spouse or civil partner of the relevant EEA citizen at (b)(i). This reveals that the rules could have expressly incorporated the kind of familial relationship seen in this case. That such clear language has not been used in this context strongly suggests that the Secretary of State’s intention and purpose, as reflected in these rules, was not to extend the entitlements which flow to a direct relative in the ascending line to their otherwise unrelated spouses. I am satisfied on a natural interpretation of the applicable Immigration Rules that the appellant is not embraced by the relevant parts of the scheme.
9. Ms Patel argued that a previous application was made under the 2016 regulations for a family permit before the UK departed the EU. This, it was said, ought to have conferred a platform for the later application under the EUSS to succeed. I am bound to agree with the points made by Ms Simbi that the application made under the 2016 regulations was refused and never appealed. That decision stands because it has never been lawfully disturbed. It cannot be sensibly contended that the refusal of an application under the 2016 regulations counts as any kind of facilitation of entry to the UK, nor would it be appropriate to treat the later EUSS application, made in August 2023, as effectively made under the 2016 regulations (see Siddiqa v ECO [2024] EWCA Civ 248).
10. Ms Patel forcefully argued that the appellant was an integral and much-loved member of her family. I do not doubt this for a moment, but the legal question I must confront is somewhat different. I must assess whether the appellant qualifies as a family member as defined in the EUSS. The plain words of those provisions are clear that he does not qualify according to that definition. It follows that his appeal against the judge’s decision must be dismissed because the decision did not involve an error of law.
Notice of Decision
The decision of the judge did not involve an error of law and stands undisturbed.

P Lodato

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

30 March 2026