Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-002250
First-tier Tribunal No: HU/52965/2024
IA/01131/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 3 February 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LANE

Between

Tyron Robert
AKA Tyron Robert Koen
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr Barr
For the Respondent: Ms Arif, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Royal Courts of Justice (Belfast) on 27 January 2026

DECISION AND REASONS

1. In this appeal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal, permission was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Ruddick in the following terms:
The appellant seeks permission to appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 5 March 2025, which dismissed his appeal against the respondent’s decision to refuse him leave to remain as a partner.
2. It is arguable that the FTT erred at [30] in dismissing as “misleading” the submission that two years’ cohabitation was no longer required by the rules following an amendment to the rules that came into effect on 31 January 2024. It would appear from the text of the rules that the effect of the rule change was precisely to remove the requirement that the couple had been “living together”. It is further arguable that, having made this error, the FTT placed too much emphasis on the question of whether the couple had been cohabiting in South Africa in deciding whether the relationship requirement of the rules was met. This error may have been material, as the FTT did find that the couple are in a genuine and subsisting relationship.
3. The grounds also argue that the FTT made a material error of fact in finding that the couple are not financially independent. This is arguable. The evidence before the FTT appears to show that both the appellant and his partner were in employment at the date of the hearing. The respondent had argued in the respondent’s review that the appellant did not meet the financial requirements of the rules, but this was on the basis that he had not been employed by the same employer for six months prior to the date of application. There was arguably no basis for the FTT to find that the couple were not financially independent.
2. At the initial hearing at Belfast on 27 January 2026, Ms Arif, Senior Presenting Officer for the Secretary of State, told me that the respondent now accepted that the First-tier Tribunal’s decision was vitiated by legal error. She referred, in particular, to [3] of Upper Tribunal Judge Ruddick’s grant of permission. The First-tier Tribunal judge’s analysis of the financial circumstances of the appellant and his partner was not, on the evidence, sustainable and the decision as whole should be set aside.
3. I agree that the First-tier Tribunal erred in law and I set aside its decision. The decision will remade in the First-tier Tribunal on the first available date in Belfast. None of the findings of fact set out in the First-tier Tribunal’s decision shall stand, save that the appellant and his partner, Ms Lombard, are currently in a genuine relationship, which I understand the respondent accepts in any event.

Notice of Decision

The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside. None of the findings of fact shall stand, save that the appellant and his partner are currently in a genuine relationship. The appeal is returned to the First-tier Tribunal for that Tribunal to remake the decision following a hearing.

C. N. Lane

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

Dated: 28 January 2026