Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-002618

First-tier Tribunal No: HU/56973/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 3rd of December 2025

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HILLS

Between

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Appellant
and

Lukasz Antoni Dziwoki
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms Simbi, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: Mr Ndubuisi, Counsel instructed by Drummond Miller

Heard at Field House on 4 November 2025

DECISION AND REASONS
Background
1. The respondent in these proceedings is a Polish national who arrived in the UK in November 2021. In 2022 he entered into a relationship with his partner, who has two children from a previous relationship. On 20 April 2024 he applied for leave to remain on the basis of his family life in accordance with appendix FM of the immigration rules. His application was refused by the Secretary of State.
2. He appealed that decision to the First-tier Tribunal (FtT), which upheld his appeal in a decision dated 11 March 2025. The Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge who heard the matter in the FtT (the Judge) concluded that Article 8 was engaged and that it would be disproportionate to the respondent, his partner and the children should the appeal not be allowed.
3. The Secretary of State appeals that decision to the Upper Tribunal.
4. To avoid confusion and for the remainder of this decision I will refer to the parties in this matter as the Secretary of State and the appellant (as he was before the FtT).
Grounds of appeal
5. The Secretary of State advances two grounds of appeal.
6. The first is that although the Judge found at [13] that there is a bond between the respondent and the children, he erred in law because he did not make a finding that there is a genuine subsisting parental relationship with a qualifying child as required by Appendix FM EX.1(a)(ii). In addition, although the Judge found there was a genuine and subsisting relationship between the respondent and his partner at [12], the Judge did not make a finding that there are insurmountable obstacles to family life continuing in Poland and that this therefore fails to have regard to the requirements of EX.1(b).
7. The second relates to S.117B of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The Judge accepts that the respondent is unable to meet the financial requirement, but finds at [14] that he could make up the shortfall through “his employment.” The Secretary of State argues relevant findings about the respondent’s employment were not made by the Judge and there is no finding that the respondent’s presence in the UK would not require additional recourse to public funds as per S.117B(3). The appellant further argues that the Judge has failed to be mindful of S.117B(4), in that the respondent has no current leave to enter or remain and therefore any family or private life that has accrued once his visit visa expired ought to be offered little weight.
Discussion and Analysis
8. Included in the material before me were the written grounds from the Secretary of State and the Response to Rule 35 Note on behalf of the appellant. I have considered those representations and the evidence within the bundle in full.
9. At the hearing, much of the submissions made by the representatives went to whether or not the Judge provided adequate reasons for his decision.
10. Ms Simbi submitted that the Judge did not provide adequate reasons. She said the Judge had accepted the appellant could not meet the immigration rules, but only provided brief findings including on the question of proportionality. She said he did not set out clear reasons for his findings relating to the appellant’s family life and how it was exercised and did not explain why unjustifiably harsh consequences would come from the appellant’s return to Poland. She noted the reference at [13] to the benefit in the children continuing to have access to their biological father but said the treatment of that factor is not clear from the decision. She also noted that the statement of the appellant’s partner discussed how she and the children regularly travelled to Poland to visit the appellant while he was there, and it was not clear how that had factored into the decision. In sum, she said, the Secretary of state is not in a position to understand the basis upon which the Judge allowed the appeal.
11. Mr Ndubuisi submitted that the Judge had given adequate reasons, saying that he clearly identified the relevant facts and made appropriate findings based on those facts. He noted that at [11] the Judge found that the facts are as set out in the papers. At [12] he accepted the statements that the appellant and his partner began to cohabit in March 2022 and that they are in a genuine and subsisting relationship. At [13] that there was a bond between the appellant and the children, it would be important for the children that this relationship is not disturbed and they continue to live together as a family unit, and that it would be unreasonable to expect the appellant’s sponsor and her children to move to Poland. In addition, at [15] the Judge confirmed that he had borne in mind the factors in S.117B.
12. Mr Ndubuisi emphasised that the Judge had the underlying evidence before him including the evidence of the appellant and the sponsor which contained detailed information about the nature of their relationship, and Mr Ndubuisi took me to specific aspects of that evidence. In accordance with Volpi v Volpi [2022] 4 WLR 48, he argued the Judge did not have to set out every piece of evidence he has relied upon. In sum, he said that the Judge had done enough in substance, if not in form, to reach a conclusion in favour of the appellant.
13. The Judge’s conclusions at [11] to [15] of his decision, which go to the important issues in dispute in this matter, are brief. Although he has made reference to the bundle of evidence and relevant statutory provisions, and Mr Ndubuisi is correct that Volpi is clear a Judge does not need to set out every piece of evidence considered in detail, there is an expectation that sufficient detail is provided so the parties can understand the reasons for the decision.
14. The Judge has not made a clear finding that the appellant has a genuine and subsisting relationship with his partner’s children. While he has set out some reasons why it would be disruptive to the children if the appellant were returned, he has not concluded that it would be unjustifiably harsh and, if so, why. He has found that the best interests of the children are in maintaining contact with their biological father who resides in Germany, however he has not explained how that is served by the family remaining in the UK. He does not appear to have dealt with the requirements of EX.1(b) and has made no findings on the question of insurmountable obstacles. While he has said that the factors in S.117B have been considered and that they do not outweigh his conclusion, is not clear upon what basis he has reached that conclusion.
15. While the Judge does not need to write a lengthy decision, I note that Mr Ndubuisi’s Response to the Rule 35 Note, for example, provides much greater detail about the type of matters which could have gone to the Judge’s reasoning about the nature of the relationship between the appellant and the children, and the potential impact of his return to Poland. As the decision is written, however, I agree with Ms Simbi that it is not clear to the Secretary of State the reasons upon which the appeal has been allowed.
16. On the basis of the above, I allow the appeal.
Disposal
17. The decision of the FtT is vitiated for the reasons above. I set aside the decision of the FtT. I have considered whether to retain the case in the Upper Tribunal or remit it to the FtT and have concluded that remittal is appropriate because it will require a fresh fact-finding exercise to be undertaken. I have considered whether any of the Judge’s findings can be preserved however given the nature of the error of law that is not possible.

Notice of Decision
The decision of the FtT is set aside as it involved an error of law. No findings are preserved.
Directions to the First-tier Tribunal

1. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal (Glasgow);
2. The remitted appeal shall not be conducted by Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Farrelly.

N Hills

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

Dated: 26 November 2025