Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-002636
First-tier Tribunal No: HU/53388/2024
LH/07717/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 14 April 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE OWENS
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WILSON

Between

Maria Manipon
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr Solomon Counsel, instructed by Lawyery Ltd t/a Dias Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms Rushforth, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Cardiff Civil Justice Centre on 16 March 2026

DECISION AND REASONS

1. In an error of law decision dated 29 January 2026 (annexed to this decision at Annex A), Upper Tribunal Judge Owens set aside a decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 29 March 2025, dismissing the appellant’s appeal against a decision dated 12 March 2024 to refuse her human rights claim for the reasons given in that decision.

2. The appellant’s appeal now comes before a panel of the Upper Tribunal to be remade pursuant to s.12(2)(b)(ii) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

3. The issue before the Upper Tribunal is whether the removal of the appellant from the UK would be a disproportionate interference with her right to respect for family life with her British citizen husband. For the reasons that follow we find that it would.

Background

4. The appellant is a national of the Philippines currently aged 62. She entered the UK on 2 June 2026 with leave to enter the UK as a visitor. She overstayed her visa. She subsequently applied under Appendix FM to remain in the UK with her British partner Mr Lewis. At the date of the application although co-habiting, they were not married. They married on 1 May 2024. The appellant’s position is that she can meet the requirements of the immigration rules because there are insurmountable obstacles to family life taking place in the Philippines because of her husband’s age, poor health and close relationship with his elderly widowed mother. The respondent’s position is that the appellant and her husband can live in the Philippines and will be able to overcome any obstacles that relocation would involve. The appellant cannot meet the immigration rules at Appendix FM and there are no compelling circumstances which would render the removal from the appellant to the Philippines a disproportionate breach of Article 8 ECHR.

Documentary evidence

5. The documentary evidence before us consisted of a composite bundle of 649 pages and a 206 page supplementary bundle. This included both the appellant’s and respondent’s evidence before the First-tier Tribunal, as well as additional evidence. Mr Solomon did not provide an updated skeleton.

The hearing

6. Mr Lewis, the appellant’s British citizen husband and the appellant both gave oral evidence, which is summarised in the record of proceedings and both representatives made submissions which we will refer to in our findings below as appropriate.

Issues in the appeal

1) Would there be insurmountable obstacles to the appellant and her husband pursuing family life together in the Philippines? If not;

2) Would the removal of the appellant from the UK result in unjustifiably harsh consequences?

Preserved findings

7. The preserved findings from the First-tier Tribunal are at [30] of that decision. They are as follows;

a) The appellant entered the UK on 2 June 2016 with leave to enter as a visitor. She overstayed. On 22 January 2024 she applied under the partner route.
b) The appellant separated from her husband in the Philippines. She was unhappy in her marriage. There was no domestic violence [19].
c) The appellant has six children who live in the Philippines. Two live with her ex-husband and one is a medical doctor. She is in contact with her children. She speaks Tagalog and worked as a licenced real estate broker.
d) The appellant would not be at risk if she returned to the Philippines [37].
e) There are no very significant obstacles to the appellant returning to the Philippines [50]
f) The appellant and her partner visited the Philippines in 2016 for three weeks.
g) The appellant and her partner are in a genuine and subsisting relationship and are now married.

Additional findings

8. Both witnesses adopted their detailed statements and were cross examined. It was not put to them by the respondent that they were not telling the truth or exaggerating about the appellant’s husband’s medical conditions or the care that the appellant provides for him. Nor was it put to the appellant that the couple’s evidence about the care provided to the appellant’s husbands’ mother was untrue. Nor were any submissions made by the respondent to this effect.

9. We found both witnesses’ evidence on the sponsor’s health problems and level of care to be both internally consistent, consistent with each other and supported by a large bundle of documentary evidence including GP records, a letter from Dr Ruth Tapsell, the appellant’s GP, a letter from Mrs Rebecca Watson, Advanced Practitioner Physiotherapist Orthopaedics dated 29 January 2026. There was also medical evidence in respect of Mrs Lewis’mother.

10. In light of this we find that Mr Lewis is a very unwell man with multiple chronic health problems. He has bilateral knee arthritis which causes him significant flare ups of pain which happens in the day and night. The supporting documents refer to him being in “agony” and being prescribed with tramadol on occasion as well as other strong pain killers such as co-codamol, pregabalin and colchicine. This offers him limited temporary relief. He has arthritis is in his knees as well as his hands. He also has very painful muscle spasms. This illness has a major impact on his life and his ability to carry out activities of daily living. He has limited mobility. He walks with two sticks and sometimes cannot walk at all. He has difficulty getting out of bed (particularly at night), dressing, washing and cooking. He is on the NHS waiting list for a total left knee replacement.

11. He also has covid related respiratory problems which began after contracting Covid in 2022. This exacerbated his pre-existing asthma. His breathing is fragile. Even mild exertion causes breathlessness. He has sleep apnoea which means that during the night he will choke or occasionally have pauses in his breathing after loud distressing snoring. He is on Fostair and salbutamol inhalers.

12. Additionally he has high blood pressure for which he takes amlodipine, chronic back pain, digestive issues for which he takes omeprazole and fatigue. Cold damp or humid weather causes flare ups in his chest and joints. He also experiences low mood.

13. He has monthly check-ups with his GP. He has consultations with specialists and is on several different medications. He often has tests such as blood tests, bowel cancer screening and asthma reviews.

14. We find that the appellant is Mr Lewis’ carer. We find that she assists him with getting out of bed, and dressing. She collects his medication for him and ensures that he takes the correct medication including pain relief, blood pressure medication and inhalers. She helps him shower. She does the cooking and the shopping. Importantly, during the night she monitors her husband and assists him with his sleep apnoea by helping him to reposition himself, adjusting pillows, and assisting him with medication such as inhalers. She helps him get out of bed if he needs it. She also provides emotional support when Mr Lewis becomes distressed because of his ill health and his declining independence. We find that she provides a very high degree of care for her husband.

15. Mr Lewis’ unchallenged evidence is that the climate of the Philippines caused him significant health problems when he visited in 2016 for a period of three weeks. His evidence is that the heat and the humidity affected his breathing and his arthritis and he was not able to go outside. He was in a lot of pain, his joints were swollen. He was very uncomfortable. He experienced fatigue. He reported this to his doctor. His evidence is that in the intervening period between 2016 and now, he is ten years older. (He is currently aged 69). In the meantime his health has significantly deteriorated particularly after experiencing long Covid. He says that if he were to return to live in the Philippines he would not be able to cope with the heat, the humidity and the air quality and that this would cause his arthritis and asthma to deteriorate. He would be in pain and his breathing would get worse. His evidence was supported by the appellant. We take into account Ms Rushforth’s submission that the GP letter relied on information provided to the GP by Mr Lewis, but it does not logically follow from this that Mr Lewis was lying to the GP. We have found him to be a witness of truth and that he is very unwell. The GP has full knowledge of Mr Lewis’ significant conditions and agreed to write a letter in support and we give the letter some weight whilst recognising its limitations. We also take into account that there is no independent expert report in this respect. Nevertheless having considered all the evidence in the round, we accept on the balance of probabilities that Mr Lewis is likely to experience a deterioration in his health in the Philippines which would affect his asthma and arthritis and would cause him significant pain and discomfort.

16. It is not in dispute that medical treatment is private in the Philippines. Mr Lewis and the sponsor have now provided some evidence of the cost of treatment including the cost of a knee replacement and the cost of medication and treatment for asthma. Ms Rushforth did not challenge the reliability of this evidence. We have already found that Mr Lewis requires a lot of medical treatment in the UK. He has frequent appointments with the GP and consultant. He takes various medications. He has tests and investigations and he is in the process of organising a knee replacement. From the evidence before us we find that the cost of a knee replacement would be between £9486.24 to £12702.55 (if there were no complications) and the cost of asthma treatment £750 to £2878.41 per year. We also find that there are likely to be additional costs because this is not all of the treatment that Mr Lewis requires.

17. Mr Lewis is on benefits and is unable to work in the UK because of his ill health. He is past retirement age. The couple live in rented accommodation and Mr Lewis is in receipt of benefits including a state pension, private pension and personal independence payment (“PIP”). The appellant is entirely dependent on Mr Lewis for financial support.

18. Ms Rushforth’s submission was that Mr Lewis would have access to medical treatment in the Philippines because treatment is available and, although expensive, the sponsor and appellant would be able to pay for it because the appellant can work; she has some family support; her daughter is a doctor and Mr Lewis has not fully disclosed his financial situation.

19. The appellant’s evidence is that her daughter is training to be a doctor and could not assist them because she works full time in a busy hospital and has her own children to care for. She cannot provide daily or long term care or provide financial support. She has informed the appellant that she cannot provide any meaningful support. The daughter provided an email in support of the appeal confirming this. This evidence was not challenged. We have found the appellant to be a credible witness and we do not accept the submission that the appellant’s medically trained daughter could provide medication or treatment for Mr Lewis. This is speculative.

20. The appellant states that she is unable to work because she is a woman who is now aged 62. Her evidence is that she would like to work as a carer in the UK, if she could. She previously worked in the UK in real estate. She says that will not able to work in the Philippines because there are age limits and she would be considered too old. We find that this is the subjective belief of the appellant and appears to be plausible but there was no supporting independent evidence in respect of this. We find that she might be able to find some employment. However even taking into account that it is a preserved finding that the appellant would be able to support herself with the assistance of her family, this is a different matter to she and her children supporting both herself and her sick husband, paying for expensive medical treatments on top of living costs at the same time as providing care. We accept her evidence that her family would not be able to assist her and her husband with all of these needs because they have their own families.

21. Mr Lewis has disclosed evidence about his financial situation including his tenancy agreement, his award of Personal Independence Payment, and his Lloyd’s bank statements. He does not own his property. His current property is rented. His oral evidence which we accept was that he sold his home some years ago as a result of his divorce and the equity was spent on his divorce and debts. He has been in receipt of benefits for many years and supports the appellant from his benefits because she cannot work. On balance, in light of this and because we find him to be a credible witness we accept his evidence that he does not have significant savings which he could use to pay for long term private medical treatment.

22. Having considered the evidence and submissions we are satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the financial support available to Mr Lewis in the Philippines will not be sufficient to pay for the medical treatment he requires now and in the future.

Mr Lewis’ mother

23. Mr Lewis’ mother is now 91 years old and very frail. Her husband died 2 years ago. Mr Lewis is her only child. Her eyesight is very poor due to macular degeneration. She also has thyroid issues and high blood pressure. She takes fostair, levothyroxine, losartan, mirtazapine and simvastatin. She has injections regularly and relies on a walking frame. She has had several falls. She lives very close to the appellant and Mr Lewis and they assist her. They visit her every day and whilst Mr Lewis keeps her company, the appellant assists her with cooking, washing and cleaning. Mr Lewis is able to use his vehicle to drive to the chemist to collect medication. He also assists with practical matters such as tradespeople and he managed the funeral arrangements for his father. We accept the witnesses’ evidence that Mr Lewis’ mother relies heavily on the emotional and practical support of Mr Lewis and the appellant and that she does not like strangers. We accept that paid carers would not be able to replicate the level and quality of care provided to Mr Lewis by Mr Lewis and the appellant.

The legal framework

Article 8 ECHR

24. Article 8 ECHR states as follows:

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

25. In so far as he relies on Article 8 ECHR, it is for the appellant to show that article 8(1) of the ECHR is engaged and if so, it is for the respondent to show that the decision was in accordance with the law, made in pursuance of a legitimate aim and that it was proportionate to the legitimate aim. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. Sections 117A to 117D of the 2002 Act are relevant to any assessment under article 8 of the ECHR outside the rules.

26. It is agreed that the appellant has family life in the UK with her husband Mr Lewis. Their relationship is accepted to be genuine and subsisting. They have been in a relationship since 2018, started cohabiting in November 2020 and married on 1 May 2024. We find that they have particularly strong family life because of Mr Lewis’ dependence on his wife because of his health needs. We also find that the appellant has private life in the UK in terms of having lived in the UK for over nine years as well as her strong relationship with her mother in law and participation in the St Nectan’s church and Hartland Women’s Institute.

27. It is agreed that the respondent’s decision to refuse her human rights claim causes an interference in the appellant’s enjoyment of her family and private life and that the likely consequences of the interference are sufficiently serious to engage Article 8(1).

28. There is no dispute that the decision was made in accordance with the law or in pursuit of a legitimate aim.

Proportionality

29. The immigration rules reflect where the Secretary of State considers the balance of proportionality to lie. If the appellant can demonstrate that he meets the immigration rules this will be determinative of the appeal.

30. The relevant immigration rules are E-LTRP1.1 The appellant meets the suitability, relationship and financial requirement and will be able to meet the rules if she can demonstrate that EX1 applies.

EX1(b) –“Insurmountable obstacles” to integration

31. The approach to insurmountable obstacles is summarised by Lady Justice Whipple in NC v SSHD[2023] EWCA Civ 1379 at [24] where she says:

“The third case is Lal v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 1925, [2020] 1 WLR 858 a case involving the meaning of "insurmountable obstacles" in paragraph EX1 of Appendix FM to the Immigration Rules. The Court (Sir Terence Etherton MR, Asplin and Leggatt LJJ) said:

"36. In applying this test, a logical approach is first of all to decide whether the alleged obstacle to continuing family life outside the UK amounts to a very significant difficulty. If it meets this threshold requirement, the next question is whether the difficulty is one which would make it impossible for the claimant and their partner to continue family life together outside the UK. If not, the decision maker needs finally to consider whether, taking account of any steps which could reasonably be taken to avoid or mitigate the difficulty, it would nevertheless entail very serious hardship for the claimant or their partner (or both).

37. To apply the test in what Lord Reed JSC in the Agyarko case [2017] 1 WLR 823, para 43 called "a practical and realistic sense", it is relevant and necessary in addressing these questions to have regard to the particular characteristics and circumstances of the individual(s) concerned. Thus, in the present case where it was established by evidence to the satisfaction of the tribunal that the claimant's partner is particularly sensitive to heat, it was relevant for the tribunal to take this fact into account in assessing the level of difficulty which Mr Wilmshurst would face and the degree of hardship that would be entailed if he were required to move to India to continue his relationship. We do not accept, however, that an obstacle to the claimant's partner moving to India is shown to be insurmountable - in either of the ways contemplated by paragraph EX.2. - just by establishing that the individual concerned would perceive the difficulty as insurmountable and would in fact be deterred by it from relocating to India. The test cannot, in our view, reasonably be understood as subjective in that sense. To treat it as such would substantially dilute the intended stringency of the test and give an unfair and perverse advantage to a claimant whose partner is less resolute or committed to their relationship over one whose partner is ready to endure greater hardship to enable them to stay together."

[25] It is not in doubt, based on these authorities, that (i) the decision-maker (or tribunal on appeal) must reach a broad evaluative judgment on the paragraph 276ADE(1)(vi) question (see Kamara at [14]), (ii) that judgment must focus on the obstacles to integration and their significance to the appellant (see Parveen at [9]) and (iii) the test is not subjective, in the sense of being limited to the appellant's own perception of the obstacles to reintegration, but extends to all aspects of the appellant's likely situation on return including objective evidence, and requires consideration of any reasonable step that could be taken to avoid or mitigate the obstacles (see Lal at [36]-[37]).

32. We find that Mr Lewis would face the following difficulties in the Philippines;

a. He is a British Citizen who has always lived in UK.
b. He is 69 years old.
c. He has no connection to the Philippines apart from through his wife. He has only visited once for three weeks in 2016 when he was not in a couple with his wife.
d. He does not speak Tagalog and he would find it difficult to adapt to the culture and lifestyle, particularly given his age.
e. He would not be able to work.
f. He has multiple chronic health difficulties as set out above.
g. The medical treatment that the appellant needs, including a knee replacement, is not affordable in the Philippines. His relocation would be an effective barrier to obtaining a knee replacement which would significantly hinder his chances of having increased mobility.
h. He would not be able to access the comprehensive additional medical treatment that he has in the UK including treatment for asthma. He has worked throughout his life, paying his taxes and is entitled to treatment under the NHS.
i. His health would deteriorate because of the climate and air pollution which would cause him significant pain and discomfort in relation to his arthritis and breathing difficulties.
j. It would be extremely difficult to mitigate against these factors because they are environmental.
k. Relocation would be an interference with his strong private life with his mother in the UK.
l. His mother would not be able to visit the Philippines due to her age and fragility. Although they could speak on the phone this would not replace the extremely strong everyday physical and emotional support that Mr Lewis provides to his mother (as well as the practical support provided by the appellant).

33. We have considered these factors holistically in the round and we have taken into account the particular characteristics of Mr Lewis including his age and his chronic illnesses.

34. We take into account that the test is a stringent one and that any difficulties and hurdles faced by an individual couple, even if challenging may not be enough to meet the test. We find that all of the above factors together amount to very significant difficulties which would make it impossible for the appellant and her husband to continue family life outside the UK. We find that there are “insurmountable obstacles” to integration and that EX1 is met. We are therefore satisfied that the appellant can meet the requirements of E-LTRP 1.1 of the immigration rules and that in accordance with TZ (Pakistan) and PG (India) v SSHD [2018] EWCA Civ 1109 this is determinative of the appeal.

Notice of Decision

35. Appeal allowed under Article 8 ECHR

R J Owens

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber