UI-2025-003249

  • Case title:  
  • Appellant name:
  • Status of case: Unreported
  • Hearing date:
  • Promulgation date:
  • Publication date:
  • Last updated on:
  • Country:
  • Judges:

The decision



IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-003249

First-tier Tribunal Nos: EU/54785/2024
LE/00544/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 25th of September 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SHERIDAN

Between

Jennifer Johanna Mejia Preciado
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: In person
For the Respondent: Ms Tariq, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 19 September 2025


DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant is a citizen of Spain. In April 2019 she was granted pre-settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme. In March 2024 this was extended until 2026.
2. On 15 April 2024 the appellant applied for settled status. On 6 June 2024 the application was refused on the basis that a continuous qualifying period of five years’ residence had not been established.
3. The appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal where her appeal came before Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Wilding. The case was decided by the judge on the papers. The judge dismissed the appeal as he was not satisfied that the appellant had established five years’ continuous residence.
4. The appellant applied for permission to appeal and permission was granted by Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Bowen.
5. On 29 July 2025 the respondent filed a response under Rule 24 of the Tribunal Procedure Rules. The Rule 24 response accepts that an inconsistent finding was made by the First-tier Tribunal and states:
“In the interest of justice, the respondent does not oppose the appellant’s application for permission to appeal. The respondent’s view is that the matter be remitted back to the FtT for a de novo hearing where all the evidence can be reconsidered.”
6. Before me, Ms Tariq and Ms Preciado were in agreement that the case should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be made afresh before a different judge.
Notice of Decision
7. The parties are in agreement that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal is undermined by a material error of law. Accordingly, I set aside the decision.
8. The case is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be decided afresh by a different judge.
9. Given the issues in dispute, this case should be listed for an oral hearing.

D. Sheridan

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber


23.9.2025