Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-002644

First-tier Tribunal No: HU/54585/2024

LH/07583/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 1st of October 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LINDSLEY

Between

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
And

JABRA YAZBEK
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr E Tufan, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: Mr Fadi Yazbek, Sponsor

Heard at Field House on 23 September 2025

DECISION AND REASONS
Introduction
1. The claimant is a citizen of Syria born on 28th November 1938. He applied for entry clearance to come to the UK under the protection status family reunion Immigration Rules on 19th September 2022 to join his adult son, but this was refused in a decision of 22nd March 2024. The claimant’s appeal against the decision was allowed, by a First-tier Tribunal Judge after a hearing on the 3rd January 2025, on human rights grounds.
2. Permission to appeal was granted to the Secretary of State by Upper Tribunal Judge Grey on 15th July 2025 on the basis that it was arguable that the First-tier judge had erred in law as set out in the first two grounds of appeal. The appeal was allowed outside of the Immigration Rules as the sponsor could not meet the refugee family reunion Immigration Rules as he is a naturalised British citizen. It is found firstly to be arguable that family life was found between the claimant and sponsor without the First-tier Tribunal identifying that there were more than normal emotional ties between parent and adult child. Secondly, it is found to be arguable that the First-tier Tribunal failed to balance the public interest in maintaining immigration control as part of the public interest considerations that must be considered when applying s.117B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Permission was refused in relation to the third and fourth grounds.
3. The matter now comes before me to determine whether the First-tier Tribunal had erred in law, and if so whether any such error was material and whether the decision of the First-tier Tribunal therefore should be set aside and remade. The claimant also made a Rule 15(2A) application to admit further evidence if an error of law was found. Mr Tufan agreed that this evidence should be admitted if an error was found and we proceeded to remaking.
Submissions – Error of Law
4. In the grounds of appeal and in oral submissions from Mr Tufan it is argued, in short summary, that the First-tier Tribunal erred in law as follows.
5. Firstly, it is argued, that the First-tier Tribunal erred by failing to provide sufficient reasons as to why family life existed or why there was an interference with any family life by refusal of entry clearance in the reasoning at paragraphs 23 to 25 of the decision, particularly as the case of Kumari v The Netherlands finds that more than normal emotional ties is required with adult relatives and even a serious medical condition would not necessarily show the required degree of dependency if it does not incapacitate the person so they are compelled to rely upon their family for care and support in daily life, and that financial dependency is not of itself sufficient, and even then, if family life is found, it is still necessary to consider weighing it against other considerations in a proportionality exercise. It is also argued that improper weight was given to the medical evidence given that it was more than two years old.
6. Secondly, it is argued that there is an error of law by failing to give weight to the public interest in making the decision that the refusal to admit the claimant to the UK would be disproportionate, and failing to recognise that the claimant’s family life was precarious (as he had not entered the UK or had any expectation not living here so was in a weaker position than an illegal entrant or overstayer) at paragraphs 22 and 26-28 of the decision. It is argued that there a failure therefore overall to identify unjustifiably harsh consequences and thus to make a decision in line with R (on the application of Agyarko) v SSHD [2017] UKSC 11.
7. In the Rule 24 notice the sponsor argues that more than normal dependency, and thus family life, is properly found as the First-tier Tribunal finds the evidence of the sponsor as credible. Family life is found in the context of it being traditional for the male son to care for his parents; the fact that as a Christian the claimant is isolated in Syria; that there had been face to face meetings in Lebanon and video and regular telephone communication evidenced by phone logs. It was noted that the claimant suffers from severe depression, anxiety and adjustment disorder, and that there was a medical report and evidence of the claimant being a widower in the form of his wife’s death certificate. It was therefore found that there is “real, effective or committed support” based on a cumulative assessment of the claimant’s advanced age, widowhood, minority faith in a place of conflict, cultural obligations, sustained physical and virtual contact and the sponsor’s ability to provide practical and emotional support. The finding of family life was therefore open to the First-tier Tribunal.
8. It is argued that proportionality was also properly dealt with as the First-tier Tribunal Judge who directed himself to the need to consider s.117A-D of the 2002 Act and to the need to use a balance sheet approach, and made reference to the public interest in maintaining immigration control, but simply found that this appeal raised exceptional matters that would have unjustifiably harsh consequences if the claimant was not permitted to join the sponsor in the UK. It is argued that precariousness is a new argument which was not previously met and should not be admitted, and the decision was clearly made in the context of the claimant being a person who had previously been admitted to the UK.
9. After hearing submissions I informed the parties that I found that the First-tier Tribunal had made an error of law in failing to provide legally sufficient reasons as to why there was a ECHR Article 8 family life relationship, rather than a ECHR Article 8 private life relationship, between the claimant and the sponsor. I set out my reasons for this decision below at paragraph 10. In these circumstances it was agreed that I did not need to go on to consider the error in relation to proportionality as the decision would need to be remade. I set aside the decision and all findings of the First-tier Tribunal, and after a short break both parties said that they were in a position to proceed with remaking. At the end of the hearing I reserved my decision on remaking.
Conclusions – Error of Law
10. Mr Tufan accepted for the Secretary of State that the correct legal test for family life is set out at paragraphs 15 and 16 of the decision. I find however that the First-tier Tribunal did not properly reason why family life was found in this appeal at paragraph 23 of the decision. The fact of the claimant living in Syria with ongoing conflict, instability and with danger from Islamist extremists as a Christian, his isolation and the tradition that as the male son the sponsor is responsible for the claimant do not, without more, amount to reasons supporting a finding of more than normal emotional ties showing real or committed or effective support.
Evidence & Submissions Remaking
11. The sponsor relied upon his statement of 27th December 2024 and also gave oral evidence updating the Upper Tribunal as to the situation of the claimant. The key facts from the evidence of the sponsor are as follows.
12. The claimant, the sponsor’s father, is 87 years old and lives in Latakia in Syria close to the Turkish border. The family are Christians. The claimant lives in a majority Alawite area, where he moved with his wife in 2017 or 2018. His wife died of cancer in 2019 and since that time he has lived alone. The claimant’s daughter Vivian moved abroad first; then in 2010 the sponsor moved to the UK for studies (and was joined by his wife in 2014 and since has become a British citizen); the claimant’s third child Grace left Syria in 2016. The claimant’s wife’s sisters are both dead, two of his siblings live abroad and the other two have died. The children of his siblings live abroad too. The claimant has no family whatsoever left in Syria.
13. The sponsor tries to speak to his father everyday via video calls on his smartphone but it is not always possible as sometimes there is no signal, and other times there is no power to charge the claimant’s phone, sometimes the claimant does not notice the call and sometimes the claimant inadvertently forgets to charge or turn the phone or turns off the WiFi due to his old age. The sponsor has not been able to visit the claimant due to the war and security risks for many years. The sponsor has done his best to get the claimant medical help, and arranged the appointment which led to the 2022 report. The sponsor also arranged to rent out the claimant’s land which means that he has a small but normally sufficient income. The sponsor also sends additional money from the UK via those travelling as there is no money transfer service to Syria. The claimant has sufficient funds as a result, however he is not capable of essential everyday tasks such as cleaning, making meals, shopping for food and medications, taking a shower safely, remembering to take his medication on a regular basis, and is also desperately lonely. The sponsor’s position is that he needs daily care. The sponsor has worked hard to coordinate help from the Christian Church of the Nazarene community and from neighbours to attempt to address these needs. He has therefore done his best to put in place appropriate and sufficient day to day practical support for his father in Syria but ultimately this has not been possible as there are no care homes and no one is willing to take on the regular care of the claimant, even for money, as they are all too concerned with their own survival in an unstable situation and in circumstances where institutional care for the elderly or paid for care is not a cultural practice and is, instead, the responsibility of the sponsor as the claimant’s son. As a result the claimant is not able to live with dignity or security, and his life is put at risk by his doing things such as eating mouldy food and forgetting to take his blood pressure and blood thinning medication.
14. The claimant is reliant on blood thinning medication and blood pressure tablets and suffers from depression and anxiety. The sponsor accepts that he is in quite good shape for a man who is nearly 88 years old but notes that he is deteriorating as would be expected of a man of his age. The claimant is afraid to leave his home to do things such as shopping as he is a vulnerable frail old man and thinks it might be taken by others whilst he is out, particularly armed Islamists who have done this with other properties in his area, and then he would be left to live on the street. He believes that there are no law and order forces, such as police, to turn to if this happened, particularly as he lives in an Alawite area which is now tainted by association with the previous Assad regime in the eyes of the current government so their forces do not provide protection to the residents. The claimant’s feelings of fear have been enhanced by the fact that the Alawites are viewed as traitors and he lives in an Alawite area; he is a Christian and Syria is now ruled by those who were previously Islamist extremists with no tolerance for other faiths and who view the Christian community as having supported or at least not actively opposed Assad; and further his home was partially damaged in the earthquake in 2023 and some of his neighbours lost their homes and lives in this natural disaster.
15. The extent of the claimant’s help in Syria is as follows. He has some help from the priest and church warden at the Church of Nazarene in Latakia and sometimes other church volunteers arranged by them. Church people have visited the claimant twice in the last two weeks but cannot do so on a reliable routine basis. The church warden, Mousa, who has done most of the visiting will leave Syria at the end of the year, and what the church volunteers can do depends on the extent of militia activity, their fear of fighting or disorder, and the needs of their own families. There are two sets of neighbours, Jack and the Othman family, who check on the claimant from time to time bringing food and sometimes medication, Jack also helps the claimant to shower sometimes, and visits him about every 10 days, the Othman family visit approximately once a month.
16. The claimant has submitted a letter from Dr Nadim Nasser of the Awareness Foundation, a London based Christian charity, who travelled to Syria and met the claimant in 2024 and found that he was “in urgent need of daily care, support and companionship” and expresses his view that the sponsor has “exhausted every possible means of providing for him from a distance”. Another letter, from Dr Alia Ibrahim, a Syrian-British resident also confirms that the sponsor has made “tireless efforts to provide for his elderly father under extremely difficult circumstances.”, and that she has checked on the claimant’s well-being on a number of occasions and taken money for the sponsor to the claimant when she has been on trips to Syria. It is her view that the “small amount of support that neighbours can occasionally provide is not enough to meet his needs.” A witness statement from Mousa Sankari, church warden at the Church of the Nazarene, confirms he has known the claimant all of his life and the sponsor since they were at Sunday school together. He confirms he has checked on the claimant over the years when possible both personally and by sending volunteers but the support he receives is “neither sufficient nor sustainable”, and further he has accepted a job in Dubai so will leave Syria by the end of 2025 and his assistance will cease at this point. A letter from Paster Harout Youssef of the Nazarene Church in Latakia states that the claimant “has sought assistance from the church for his daily physical and mental needs” but that “our church does not have the resources or expertise to provide the specialized care required.”
17. The medical report of Dr Samer Aljaradat, neuropsychiatric specialist, of the Al-Hayat Hospital in Mhdardeh, Syria dated 11th October 2022 diagnoses that the claimant suffers from anxiety, weight loss, insomnia, nightmares, confusion, memory loss, flashbacks and low mood. His opinion is that his condition is not treatable whilst his situation is uncertain and whilst he lives in a destructive environment, and that he needs care and to feel safe living with his son whom he trusts.
18. The claimant also provides evidence of his UK property ownership and income from his job in human resources with Starbucks Coffee Company, and documents relating to his family living abroad.
19. Mr Tufan submitted for the Secretary of State that he accepts that the sponsor was a completely credible witness who has given truthful testimony to the Upper Tribunal. He points out that the application for entry clearance had not been made with respect to Appendix Adult Dependent Relative of the Immigration Rules, and that the fee had not been paid for this application, but accepts that it was relevant for the Upper Tribunal to consider if the claimant could meet these requirements. He said that it was accepted the financial requirements could be met and that the claimant would not need recourse to public funds. He raised no issues with the suitability requirements. In respect of the eligibility requirements he accepted the claimant was coming to join his son so ADR 4.1 was met and his son is a British citizen so ADR4.2 is met. Mr Tufan accepted that ADR 5.1 was also met as the claimant does as a result of his age and ill-health need long term personal care to perform everyday tasks. Mr Tufan argued however that ultimately the Immigration Rules were not met as care was available in Syria and was affordable, so ADR 5.2 was not met. Mr Tufan argued that the human rights appeal should be dismissed as, although he accepted for the Secretary of State that there was an Article 8 ECHR family life relationship between the claimant and sponsor, refusal of entry clearance was a proportionate interference with that relationship because there were no unjustifiably harsh consequences if entry clearance was refused. The claimant had intermittent help from neighbours and there was a sort of peace now in Syria, and the public interest in refusing to admit a person who could not meet the Immigration Rules therefore outweighed the claimant’s right to respect for family life even though he accepted there would be sufficient financial support for the claimant in the UK. Mr Tufan questioned however whether the claimant could speak English, and submitted that this would be a further matter weighing against him in the balancing exercise.
20. The sponsor argued that the claimant should be found to be able to meet the requirements of ADR 5.2 as the level of care that he had managed to put in place in Syria, with great effort and calling on all possible help that he could find, was insufficient, inconsistent and unreliable. There are no nursing/care homes and nobody can provide that day to day support the claimant needs. The situation in Syria is not peaceful, the FCO Travel Advice still advises him against all travel to Syria as a British citizen because of the risk of terror attacks and the unpredictable security conditions. Further the Secretary of State’s CPIN on Syria: Alawites and actual and perceived Assadists, Syria, July 2025 set out the details of an attack in March 2025 between Assad loyalists and security forces which led to revenge killings against Alawite civilians by armed supporters of the new government. The claimant lives in an Alawite area of Latakia. He is old, unwell, infirm and vulnerable. It is unjustifiably harsh for the claimant not to be admitted to the UK in light of his mental and physical health, his care needs, his inconsistent support, his risk of death through eating mouldy food and failing to take his medications, the situation in Syria which means that he cannot be provided with the necessary daily support, the impact on the sponsor of seeing the claimant suffer alone which in turn is impacting on the sponsor’s whole family, and the need to protect the claimant’s humanity. He also informed the Upper Tribunal that the claimant speaks English, French, Polish (due to studying in that country) and Arabic.
21. At the end of the remaking hearing I reserved my decision.
Conclusions – Remaking
22. I find the sponsor to be an entirely credible witness, as was rightly conceded by Mr Tufan for the Secretary of State. He provided an entirely truthful, detailed and nuanced account which corroborates entirely with his previous submissions and the documents provided from others. Whilst the medical report is three years old I see no reason to doubt that what is says is still pertinent as it also consistent with the current evidence of the claimant’s mental state from the sponsor and the recent letters and statements submitted from others in support of this appeal. I find no reason to doubt any of the supporting letters that the sponsor has provided either. I therefore give weight to all of this evidence.
23. The first focus of this decision is to decide whether the claimant can meet the requirements of the Adult Dependent Relative Rules. Mr Tufan, for the Secretary of State, accepted that all of the substantive requirements are shown to be met (including the financial ones) except that at ADR 5.2. I note that the Secretary of State therefore accepts that the claimant needs, as a result of age and illness, long term personal care to perform everyday tasks, and so can meet ADR 5.1. I agree that this is the case: the claimant is 87 years old and cannot take a shower, purchase or prepare food, clean his home, and is afraid through a mixture of anxiety and realistic fears regarding the situation in Syria to leave his house and so is unable to have any human contact of his volition and is completely alone therefore for days at a time. I find there is no doubt that he needs long term personal care to perform everyday tasks.
24. The next question is whether the claimant can meet ADR 5.2 (a), and so whether he is unable to obtain the required level of care in Syria because that care is not available and there is no person in that country who can reasonably provide it. Mr Tufan did not seek to argue that care homes or more help was available in Syria but simply that what the claimant currently receives equates to “the required level of care”. I find that the credible evidence of the sponsor is that there are no care homes or carers to be paid to help in Syria. This is not culturally what is done and the insecurity in which people have lived, and continue to live in, means that they are not open to taking on responsibility for the claimant in this way even for payment. The question then is whether the intermittent and unpredictable visits by church volunteers coordinated by the warden Mousa Sankari and neighbours Jack and the Othman family amount to the required level of care. I find that they do not for the following reasons. Clearly this is the view of the sponsor, Mr Sankari and the priest at the church Paster Harout Youssef from the Nazarene Church in Latakia as I set out above in the evidence before me. I find that the claimant needs daily help with showering, sourcing and preparing food; and in the context of his anxiety and low mood he also needs daily human company. I find that the current arrangement provides this assistance on average once a week, but that given the complex security situation and the difficult situation with daily existence for those providing help, which means that their own family needs might mean that they do not visit the claimant, that he could go up to two weeks without seeing anyone or receiving any care assistance. I note the July 2025 CPIN “Alawites and actual and perceived Assadists, Syria” contains evidence of armed actors evicting Alawites from their homes and of civilian victims in the attack on Mediterranean coast Alawite towns and villages in March 2025 including by groups affiliated to the current HTS government in this connection which supports the evidence of the sponsor of the fears of the claimant and difficulties in life in Latakia for those helping the claimant. On consideration of all of the evidence I find the claimant, a vulnerable 87 year old gentlemen, is not able to access his required level of care in his country of nationality and residence. I therefore find that all of the substantive Immigration Rules at Appendix ADR are met by him.
25. Mr Tufan conceded that the claimant and sponsor have a family life relationship as there are more than normal emotional ties. I find that this is the case on the basis of the concession, and in light of the fact that there is attempted daily video call contact between the claimant and sponsor and in light of the fact that claimant has no other family in his country of origin and very little other human contact, and in light of the closeness of the relationship as evidenced by the sponsor’s evidence and set out in the supporting letters and witness statements. The sponsor has facilitated the claimant’s financial support by renting out land and is doing his best to provide as much emotional and practical support as is humanly possible. As Dr Nasser of the Awareness Foundation, a London based Christian charity, says the sponsor has “exhausted every possible means of providing for him from a distance”. This degree of commitment is, I find, real, committed and effective support, and I find that it is the case that the claimant is compelled to rely upon the sponsor for support in his daily life as there is no one else able and willing to do so, and due to his vulnerabilities relating to old age and mental health problems.
26. When conducting the Article 8 ECHR balancing exercise I find that if it is accepted, as I have found that it should be, that the Immigration Rules at Appendix ADR are met then there is no public interest in maintaining immigration control nor any other public interest in the claimant being excluded from the UK as it is accepted by Mr Tufan that the sponsor can accommodate and support him without recourse to public funds and thus that he will be financially independent, and I accept the evidence of the sponsor that the claimant also is able to speak basic everyday English.
27. In the alternative, if I am wrong and the Immigration Rules at Appendix ADR are not met, the balancing exercise would weigh the public interest in maintaining immigration control against the accepted, by the Secretary of State and this Tribunal, family life relationship between the sponsor and claimant. In addition weighing against that public interest would be the fact that the claimant cannot have his essential care needs adequately met in Syria and thus is vulnerable to not feeding himself adequately, giving himself food poisoning, being unwashed and not taking medication which could lead to his early death through complications of high blood pressure and blood clotting. The claimant would also suffer profound loneliness and isolation due to his fears, which both reflect his clinical anxiety and the country situation of violent attacks against, and insecurity within, the Alawite community amongst whom he lives, and this in turn would have a profoundly saddening effect on the sponsor and his family in the UK in light of his family life relationship with the claimant and community expectations that he care for the claimant in old age as his son. In this balancing exercise I find that the claimant would be financially provided for and can speak basic English so these are neutral matters. On consideration of the evidence as a whole I find, even in this scenario, that it would be a disproportionate interference with the sponsor’s right to respect for family life to deny the claimant entry clearance. It follows that the appeal should be allowed on Article 8 ECHR grounds.
Decision:
1. The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error on a point of law.
2. I set aside the decision and the findings of the First-tier Tribunal.
3. I re-make the decision in the appeal by allowing it on Article 8 ECHR human rights grounds.

Fiona Lindsley

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
24th September 2025