Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-002964

First-tier Tribunal No: EU/51142/2024
LE/04030/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 18th February 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RIMINGTON

Between

Carlos Roberto Marciano
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Litigant in person (Portuguese interpreter present)
For the Respondent: Mr P Lawson, Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Cardiff Civil Justice Centre on 28 January 2026

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant is a national of Brazil (and apparently Portugal from 2023) who made an application on 18th March 2023 and then on 4th November 2023 for an EU settlement scheme (EUSS) family permit as a durable partner of his sponsor who has settled status. That was refused on 1st February 2024 by the Secretary of State on the basis that the applicant did not meet the requirements of EU11 and EU14 of Appendix EU. The basis of the application to the Secretary of State was that the applicant was a durable partner.
Grounds of appeal and permission
2. The grounds of appeal contended that the primary reason for refusal was that the appellant and his wife were not residing together continually for two years prior to ‘Brexit’ (sic), 31st December 2020; this however did not negate the reality of their committed genuine and ongoing relationship, and they were raising a child together. They had a permanent and stable family life in the UK and refusal would have a profound effect on their private and family life.
3. Permission to appeal was granted on the basis that it was arguable that Appendix EU could be construed in the alternative that there may be significant evidence of a genuine relationship not merely a requirement for a ‘2 year’ relationship.
4. At the hearing before me Mr Lawson continued to maintain that the relationship needed to be evidenced for two years leading up to the ‘exit date’ of 31st December 2020 and that the appellant had provided evidence that he had only been introduced to his partner in 2019 and thus fulfilment of the relevant requirements was not possible.
5. The appellant attended and relied on his grounds of appeal.
Conclusions
6. The date of the application, as confirmed by the appellant had been made in March 2023 although I note there is reference to an application dated as recorded by the judge as 4th November 2023. The appellant accepted that he submitted his application from Portugal and arrived in the UK in April 2023 (with apparently six months leave).
7. The difficulty for the appellant is, as recorded by the judge, the paucity of evidence provided. I do not accept as Mr Lawson submitted that the rule insisted that to show a durable relationship akin to marriage there needed necessarily demonstrated that the relationship had existed akin to marriage for be two years. That is not what the refusal letter states either.
8. The definition, however, of durable partner as set out in Annex 1 of Appendix EU is as follows;
(a) the person is, or (as the case may be) for the relevant period was, in a durable relationship with a relevant EEA citizen (or, as the case may be, with a qualifying British citizen or with a relevant sponsor), with the couple having lived together in a relationship akin to a marriage or civil partnership for at least two years (unless there is other significant evidence of the durable relationship);

and

(b)(i) the person holds a relevant document as the durable partner of the relevant EEA citizen (or, as the case may be, of the qualifying British citizen or of the relevant sponsor) for the period of residence relied upon;
…
; or

(ii) where the person is applying as the durable partner of a relevant sponsor…, and does not hold a document of the type to which sub-paragraph (b)(i) above applies,
and where:

(aa) the date of application is after the specified date; and

(bb) the person:

(aaa) was not resident in the UK and Islands as the durable partner of a relevant EEA citizen (where that relevant EEA citizen is their relevant sponsor) on a basis which met the entry for ‘family member of a relevant EEA citizen’ in this table, or, as the case may be, as the durable partner of the qualifying British citizen, at (in either case) any time before the specified date, unless (in the former case):

- the reason why they were not so resident is that they did not hold a relevant document as the durable partner of that relevant EEA citizen for that period; and
- they otherwise had a lawful basis of stay in the UK and Islands for that period; or
(bbb) was resident in the UK and Islands before the specified date, and one of the events referred to in sub-paragraph (b)(i) or (b)(ii) of the entry for ‘continuous qualifying period’ in this table has occurred and after that event occurred they were not resident in the UK and Islands again before the specified date;
or
(ccc) was resident in the UK and Islands before the specified date, and the event referred to in sub-paragraph (a) of the entry for ‘supervening event’ in this table has occurred and after that event occurred they were not resident in the UK and Islands again before the specified date,

the Secretary of State is satisfied by evidence provided by the person that the partnership was formed and was durable before …the date and time of withdrawal and otherwise before the specified date; and

(c) it is, or (as the case may be) for the relevant period was, not a durable partnership of convenience; and

(d) neither party has, or (as the case may be) for the relevant period had, another durable partner, a spouse or a civil partner with (in any of those circumstances) immigration status in the UK or the Islands based on that person’s relationship with that party

in addition, to meet condition 6 in the table in paragraph EU11 of this Appendix (or condition 3 in the table in paragraph EU11A), the above requirements are to be met with reference to the period immediately before the death of the relevant EEA citizen (or, as the case may be, of the relevant sponsor) rather than to the date of application

(my underlining)
9. The fact is that as set out in the refusal letter and noted in the decision of the judge, the appellant did not produce satisfactory evidence of his durable relationship prior to the 31st December 2020, whether for two years or otherwise. The Secretary of State’s refusal letter pointed out the absence of the information and that the appellant had been contacted on numerous occasions to produce relevant information. The relationship was not evidenced by ‘other significant evidence’ for the relevant period, and it was not accepted that the partnership, in terms of a durable relationship had been formed by 23.00 on 31st December 2020. That was the flaw in the application and appeal. Further it was not accepted that the partnership remained ‘durable’ even by the date of application because there was insufficient evidence.
10. I specially asked the appellant what evidence he thought the judge had omitted to consider and he pointed to the marriage certificate which purported to show the marriage took place on 29th July 2022. The copy of a document in the file before the FtT judge was not translated from Portuguese. The translation in the Tribunal bundle referred to a ‘pre-nuptial’ agreement. As the judge pointed out, and he did address the relevant letters sent by friends [29], the appellant had provided one main photograph of himself and his partner [28]. It was noted by the judge that the appellant had not sent evidence of living with his partner on the date of the application [24] and the appellant conceded that the respondent had not asked for this.
11. As the judge noted at [13] none of the evidence such as utility bills dated back to between 2018 to 2020. I can see that the evidence predominantly dates from May 2024 and the photographs in the bundle are undated.
12. It was noted that the respondent had asked for further documentation [22] but as recorded ‘it was put to him that he had not provided evidence that he was living with his partner as of December 2018.’ Even if the appellant could have provided other significant evidence of the relationship simply, he did not. The child was the child of the appellant himself and now said to be a child of the family.
13. As the appellant stated and recorded at [26] the appellant arrived in the UK in November 2020, stayed for 40 days, left and lived in Portugal, thereafter, entered the UK in April 2023 and made the application in March 2023 and apparently another in November 2023.
14. Even if the appellant did not need to show a durable relationship for 2 years to the 31st December 2020, he had provided only minimal evidence of a durable relationship at the relevant time. There was a paucity of evidence let alone significant evidence as to a durable relationship and as such it was open to the judge to conclude that either requirement (2 years or significant evidence) had not been fulfilled. The evidence as requested and set out in the refusal letter was not provided despite giving the appellant in writing the opportunity to provide the information. The appellant was even repeatedly asked by the Tribunal for further documentation from May 2024 onwards and no supporting evidence was provided until August 2024 when some letters and witness statements attesting to the relationship were provided and which the judge addressed. The evidence consists of repetitions of the same documents over and over again.
15. If the appellant had been in the UK for 40 days as he states from November 2020, (and the evidence on this apparently changed) there was no document confirming a family relationship or durable partnership as per Celik [2023] EWCA Civ 921. Moreover, he produced no ‘other significant evidence of the durable relationship’ at the relevant time. Even the marriage certificate was incomplete. The appellant produced no evidence of his durable relationship until the date of his arrival in the UK and no translated marriage certificate.
16. In those particular circumstances it was open to the judge to make the decision he did.

Notice of Decision
I found no material error of law in the decision of the FtT judge and the decision will stand. The appellant’s appeal remains dismissed.

H Rimington

Judge of the Upper Tribunal Rimington
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

10th February 2026