Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-003103

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/58134/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 19th November 2025

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE McCARTHY

Between

AO
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr S Winter
For the Respondent: Ms S Simbi

Heard at Field House on 14 November 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant is granted anonymity.

No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the appellant, likely to lead members of the public to identify the appellant, his wife, or her children. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. With permission granted by First-tier Tribunal Judge Chohan, the Appellant appeals against the decision and reasons of First-tier Tribunal Judge McGrade, issued on 08/05/2025.
2. The representatives attended remotely. There were no connectivity issues affecting the hearing and I am satisfied each representative was able to make submissions effectively as if they had attended in person.
3. Before the hearing, I had regard to the 598-page composite error of law bundle. The key documents for the error of law hearing were Judge McGrade’s decision and reasons, the application for permission to appeal, the grant of permission, the SSHD’s rule 24 response and the Appellant’s rule 25 submissions.
4. Having considered these documents and having listened to what the representatives had to say, I decide that there is no legal error in the decision, and it is upheld. Although I gave brief reasons at the end of the hearing, I stated that I would amplify them in a written decision.
5. The grounds of appeal turn on whether the judge erred by failing to make a clear, reasoned finding about whether the Appellant enjoys family life within the meaning of article 8(1) of the ECHR with his wife’s children. I am satisfied the judge was analysing this issue in paragraph 27 of his decision. After examining the nature of the Appellant’s relationship with the children, the judge concluded that “his presence is less significant than it might otherwise have been.”
6. This is a sufficiently clear finding that the Appellant’s involvement with his wife’s children, despite being positive for her and for her children, does not reach the threshold to engage s.117B(6) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 as his involvement does not establish a “genuine and subsisting relationship with a qualifying child”. Having reached this conclusion, the grounds of appeal about whether the judge adequately addressed issues relating to proportionality fall away.
7. In reaching this decision, I have had regard to the case law cited by Mr Winter, particularly SR (subsisting parental relationship, s117B(6)) [2018] UKUT 334 (IAC). Although he focused on the fact that in that case the Upper Tribunal found that regular but infrequent contact between a parent and a child could engage s.117B(6), he also recognised that the instant case did not involve a biological relationship. I find on the facts as found by Judge McGrade in paragraph 27 of his decision, nothing useful can be drawn from SR.
8. For completeness, I add that like so many cases, the judge could have given more reasons. Ms Simbi reminded me that the relevant test is whether the reasons given are adequate and that brevity is a virtue. I agree with her on both points. On my analysis, Judge McGrade’s reasoning is adequate. Yes, it could be more detailed and could perhaps be clearer, but overall it adequately addresses the issues that had to be addressed.
Notice of Decision
The decision does not contain legal error and is upheld.

Judge John McCarthy

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

Date issued: