Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-003212

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/58759/2023
IA/01031/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 19th November 2025

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE McCARTHY

Between

MOHAMMED OMED NAMIQ
(NO 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

DECISION AND REASONS
1. With permission granted by First-tier Tribunal Judge Mulready, the Appellant appeals against the decision and reasons of First-tier Tribunal Judge DH Clapham, issued on 23/06/2025.
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 a bundle of 464 numbered pages. The key documents for the error of law hearing were Judge Clapham’s decision and reasons, the application for permission to appeal, the grant of permission and the SSHD’s rule 24 response. Mr Winter admitted that he had not seen the rule 24 response until shortly before the error of law hearing and made oral submissions instead of a rule 25 reply.
4. I mention that the representatives had a different bundle (a composite error of law bundle), but we were able to identify that all relevant documents were in both versions and the differing page numbers did not cause any particular difficulty.
5. After hearing from the representatives, I reserved my decision and reasons. Having further considered the documents and having reflected on what the representatives had to say, I have decided there is no legal error in the decision, and it is upheld.
6. Permission to appeal was granted only on ground 3, which relates to the Appellant’s relationship in the UK. The Appellant did not seek to renew the other grounds, and they are not pursued. As identified by Judge Mulready, ground 3 has three parts:
a. Failing to take account of the Appellant’s wife’s evidence,
b. Failing to make a clear finding as to whether family life was established, and
c. Failing to take account of all relevant factors in the Article 8 [EHCR] analysis.
7. Judge Clapham summarises the Appellant’s wife’s oral evidence in paragraphs 30 to 44 of the decision. At paragraph 31, the judge states that the Appellant’s wife adopted her witness statement. It was agreed that this was the statement dated 27/05/2025. At paragraph 59, when making her findings, Judge Clapham expressly refers to hearing from the Appellant’s wife. I conclude that it is not accurate to allege she failed to take account of her evidence.
8. In paragraph 59, Judge Clapham finds that the available evidence did not establish, “even a semblance of married life together.” I am satisfied this is an adequate finding that the Appellant failed to show that he had established family life with his wife within the meaning of Article 8(1). Judge Clapham was focused on the provisions of Article 8 and the question was not whether the Appellant was married, but whether the marital relationship amounted to family life. Judge Clapham gives reasons for her conclusion, and they are sufficient and sustainable.
9. Having concluded that there was no family life, the comments about how the Appellant and his wife might maintain their relationship were the Appellant to return to Iraq, must be treated as mere observations. It may be that Judge Clapham was considering Article 8(2) in the alternative as a “belts and braces” approach, but such an approach does not and cannot undermine the adequate finding and reasons she has given regarding Article 8(1). As a result, I conclude that any error arising within the proportionality assessment cannot be material to the decision she reached.

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: