Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-003322

First-tier Tribunal No: HU/52137/2024
LH/00029/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 26th January 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SOLANKI

Between

ABRAHAM IKE UZOWULU
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Timson, Counsel instructed by Medlock Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr Hulmes, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 6 November 2025

DECISION AND REASONS

1. The Appellant is a citizen of Nigeria. He was born in 1987.

2. The issue to decide is whether the First-tier Tribunal (‘FtT’) Judge (‘the Judge’) Dyer erred in law, in a decision dated 13 March 2025, when dismissing the Appellant’s appeal against the decision of the Respondent, dated 14 February 2024, to refuse his application for leave on human rights grounds.

Background

3. The Appellant entered the UK as a visitor in 2008. He has remained here since.

4. On 22 October 2022, he married Feliciti Kouliho, who holds settled status as a the family member of a refugee.

5. He made an application for leave to remain on 20 December 2023. This was on the basis of his family life. He argued that he and his wife would face insurmountable obstacles in continuing family life in Nigeria and that removal to Nigeria would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences such that there would be breach of Article 8 ECHR.

6. His application was refused in a decision dated 14 March 2024.

7. He appealed the refusal and this case before the FtT in a remote hearing on 7 February 2025. The appeal was dismissed by the FtT in a decision dated 14 March 2025.

Grounds of Appeal and Grant of Permission

8. The Appellant appealed the decision of the FtT on 27 March 2025. I summarise the grounds of appeal advanced as follows:
i. Paragraphs 3 and 4 grounds: The Judge provides no or no adequate explanation for the conclusion at para.15 of the decision, that the Appellant was unable to provide clear or factual answers to many questions. The Appellant was entitled to reasons for this finding.
ii. Paragraphs 5-7 grounds: The Judge provides no or no adequate reasoning for the finding that the Appellant’s answers were vague or imprecise in respect of who he has or had contact with in Nigeria.
iii. Paragraphs 8-9 grounds: Reasons for core findings need to be given as per MK (duty to give reasons) Pakistan [2013] UKUT 00641 (IAC).
iv. Paragraph 10: It follows that the conclusions in relation to Appendix FM EX.1 and Article 8 ECHR are flawed.

9. The Appellant was granted permission to appeal on the grounds advanced by FtT Judge Elliott in a decision dated 16 July 2025.

Submissions

10. The matter came before me in an error of law hearing on 6 November 2025.

11. I had before me a composite bundle running to 257 pages and a Rule 24 reply dated 24 July 2025.

12. I heard detailed submissions from both representatives.

13. Mr Timson relied on the grounds of appeal. Mr Hulme submitted that the Judge had made clear he had taken into account all evidence and submissions even where not referred to (para 12 decision), the decision and findings had to be read in context, the Judge was not required to set out verbatim what the evidence was. He highlighted that at para. 16 the Judge had not accepted the Appellant’s evidence on reasons for overstay or living rough. At para. 17 the Judge had not accepted the Appellant’s explanation for his inconsistency between his application form and evidence in respect of living in Ghana. Para. 19 had to be considered against the appellant’s witness statement and application form in which he said he had no family in Nigeria, and his oral evidence in which he said for the first time that he did have. Further, at para.21 the Judge did not accept the Appellant’s evidence he cared for his wife in the context of the fact she cared for her parents and was working.

14. Mr Timson said that the findings at paras. 16, 17, 19 and 21 were not examples of unclear, imprecise or vague evidence. The findings made here were not challenged by the Appellant. These findings did not address the grounds of appeal advanced. Para.12 of the decision was not sufficient to address the errors in the decision.

Findings and Reasons
15. I set out relevant aspects of MK (duty to give reasons) Pakistan [2013] UKUT 641 (IAC) here:
(1) It is axiomatic that a determination discloses clearly the reasons for a tribunal’s decision.
(2) If a tribunal finds oral evidence to be implausible, incredible or unreliable or a document to be worth no weight whatsoever, it is necessary to say so in the determination and for such findings to be supported by reasons. A bare statement that a witness was not believed or that a document was afforded no weight is unlikely to satisfy the requirement to give reasons.
[11] The depth and extent of the duty to give reasons will inevitably vary from one case to another. The duty is contextually sensitive. Thus, as the Upper Tribunal observed in Shizad [2013] UKUT 35 (IAC), a tribunal’s reasons need not be extensive if its decision makes sense. See also R (Iran) v SSHD [2005] EWCA Civ 982.

16. As this is a reasons challenge, I summarise the findings made by the FtT here. I note Mr Timson sensibly stated that he was not challenging many of the findings made:
• Paras. 8, 10-11 – The issues in dispute were agreed by the parties as being whether the Appellant’s and his wife circumstances met the test of insurmountable obstacles under Appendix FM EX.1 (b) in respect of Nigeria, or whether there would be unjustifiably harsh consequences which would render removal a breach of Article 8 ECHR.
• Para. 12 – He had taken into account all the evidence and submissions even where something was not expressly referred to.
• Para. 13 - The appellants wife and parents-in-law were credible and honest in their evidence. They accepted that medical issues and appointments could be managed without the appellant or his wife. They had another seven adult children living around them, and whilst it might be more inconvenient for them they were able to call upon the other children if required.
• Para. 14 - The sponsor arrived in the UK in 2012 when she was around the age of 17 or 18 from Benin. Benin borders Nigeria. While she has been settled in the UK, she is familiar with the West African continent having grown up there. It might not be the standard or quality of life that she is used to here, but that does not amount to insurmountable obstacles or unjustifiably harsh consequences. She has no health issues that prevent her from working and there is no evidence that she could not receive adequate care in Nigeria. There were many family members in the UK who would be able to provide financial and emotional support to them.
• Para. 15 - ‘On the issue of the appellant’s own evidence, he did not come across very well- even allowing for the pressures of giving evidence, he was unable to provide clear or factual answers to many questions asked in cross-examination.’
• Para. 16 – ‘With regards to his immigration history in the United Kingdom, he was granted Leave to Enter as a Family Visitor from 04 December 2008 to 04 June 2009. He attempted to minimise any culpability on his part for overstaying the six month leave granted. He firstly offered the explanation for overstaying that he had met a woman that he liked and moved in with her. He had not returned to Nigeria at the expiry of the visa because he did not want to and he claimed not to know much about ‘overstaying’ at that time because he was only 22 years old. After that relationship broke down a few years later he began living with friends and acquaintances – he initially described this as “living rough” but it was clarified in cross examination that this meant moving from friend to friend and that he had never actually slept on the streets. I do not accept that he did not know or think much about being an overstayer. He had an older brother already in the UK whom he has some limited contact with, he applied several times for visas to the UK and I believe he was more likely than not fully aware of the consequences of overstaying but chose to do so as he wished to remain in the UK regardless.’
• Para. 17 - He explained that it was an error that he had failed to mention residing in Ghana until age 18 on his application form. He accepted he had no evidence of having lived in Ghana as claimed for 18 years.
• Para. 18 - Given the questions on the form, it was not accepted that it was a reasonable explanation to say that an error was made on the application form in respect of Ghana. He was not telling the truth about this aspect of his evidence.
• Para. 19 - He has family in Nigeria. He previously stated he had three sisters, one brother, uncles and aunts there and first cousins. Now he has at least two sisters in Nigeria and a brother in the UK. It seemed that the sisters may have cared for him when his mother died, as he was the youngest of the children. His parents were both deceased. ‘It was difficult to be sure who he has and had contact with, because he was evasive or vague or imprecise in his answers in cross examination, however I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that he has immediate family in Nigeria that he could establish contact with, if he does not already have contact with them and that they would provide him support until he got himself back on his feet.’
• Para. 20 - His father-in-law runs a business exporting and importing goods to inform Togo, which borders Benin. His wife's maternal grandmother is a contact used by the business, as she is based in Togo. The appellant had assisted in loading of containers from time to time. He was not prohibited from travelling to Benin or Togo. There was no reason that he could not support his father in law’s business or find alternative employment.
• Para. 21 - His wife was working to support her parents and there was no evidence to substantiate the assertion that he cared for her in a significant or exceptional way. She was close to her parents and siblings and so she had access to supporters were she to remain here.
• Para. 22 - It was not accepted as true that he had only lived in Nigeria for a few years and that he had grown up in Ghana. As such, his evidence in respect of lack of connections in Nigeria for work was not accepted.
• Para. 23 - There was no evidence to suggest he would not be able to obtain work in Nigeria or assimilate to life in Nigeria. There were no barriers in respect of his or his wife's health. They had family there who could provide practical, financial and emotional support.
• Para. 24 - They speak English. English is a spoken language in Nigeria.
• Para. 25 - There would not be insurmountable obstacles to family life continuing in Nigeria.
• Para. 26 - His wife would have difficulties leaving her work and family behind, and moving to another country. This would be a culture shock, there would be significant disruption.
• Para. 27 - They would have each other for support. He would be able to obtain employment and support his wife. None of the matters, even taken together, constitute insurmountable obstacles.
Para. 28 – Article 8 ECHR is engaged. The immigration rules are not met. The public interest lies in the maintenance of effective immigration control. The parents ability to speak English and financial independence are neutral factors. Whilst he had a genuine and subsisting relationship with his wife, this relationship was established when he had been an overstayer for a number of years and so was in the UK unlawfully. As such little weight is given to that family life. His wife had a good relationship with her family and friends, and she would have to maintain those at a distance if she moved to Nigeria.
• Para. 29 – The factors raised by the appellant do not outweigh the public interest. Return of the appellant would not give rise to unjustifiably harsh consequences. His wife’s parents would be adequately provided for in the UK by the state and other children. He had not shown to the required standard he would be culturally unfamiliar with Nigeria owing to having grown up in Ghana. These were key factors in arguing that interference would be disproportionate. His wife would leave her family and friends, but she is married to the appellant now who is her immediate family unit. There were no particularly compelling features which would render his removal disproportionate. The appellant can reasonably to be expected to return to Nigeria and, if he so chooses, to make an entry clearance application as a spouse from there, it having been established in the evidence that his wife has been working and there is therefore a reasonable prospect that she would be able to meet the minimum income threshold. Temporary separation for that purpose would not be a disproportionate outcome weighed against the maintenance of immigration control.’

17. I start by looking at the error argued in respect of para. 19 of the decision. The Judge states it was difficult to be sure of who the Appellant had contact with in Nigeria as he was “evasive or vague or imprecise in his answers in cross examination”.

18. I note that para. 19 starts with the Judge setting out that the Appellant at one stage had said he had three sisters, one brother, uncles, aunts and first cousins in Nigeria, but that he now has at least two sisters in Nigeria. There is no challenge to this finding. There is clearly imprecision or inaccuracy in this evidence about his family in Nigeria (as such one can understand the finding that he was imprecise about who he has or had contact with).

19. Moreover, as was highlighted to me by Mr Hulme, in the Appellant’s application form (which the Judge in fact sets out at para.17 of the decision) he was asked “What family or friends do you have in the country where you were born and/or any other country whose nationality you hold?”. His answer to this was “None.” In his witness statement at para.8 he also says he has ‘no ties to Nigeria.’ It is not difficult to see the differences in evidence here.

20. It follows that there is no material error of law at para.19 of the decision when reading this part of the decision and the evidence as a whole. The Judge plainly had regard to the evidence (see for example para. 17 of the decision), reasons are given and one can understand the finding made.

21. In respect of the challenge to para. 15 of the decision, what the Judge said was that the Appellant did not come across very well, even allowing for the pressures of giving evidence and he was unable to provide clear or factual answers to many questions asked in cross examination.

22. I have read the decision as a whole and summarised the same above at para.16 of my decision. In considering whether there is an error at para.15 of the Judge’s decision, I have taken into account the following:
• I have already set out above, that the Judge recorded at para.19 of his decision, that the Appellant was inconsistent or unclear on family members / contact with family members in Nigeria. As a consequence of this, at para. 22, he does not accept his evidence that he has no connections or knowledge of Nigeria to find work there.
• At para.16 the Judge says the Appellant minimised culpability for overstaying. He says that whilst the Appellant claimed not to know much about overstaying, this was not accepted as he had a brother already in the UK and the Applied had applied for visas to the UK. It can be seen from these reasons that the Judge did not find the Appellant’s evidence impressive or credible in this regard.
• At para. 16 the Judge also indicates that the Appellant was not clear in his evidence about whether he had been living rough in the UK.
• At paras. 17-18 the Judge did not accept the Appellant’s evidence in cross examination that he had made an error in his application form in failing to mention his long residence in Ghana. He finds the questions on the form are clear and that the Appellant is not telling the truth about this part of his evidence. Again, the finding made that the Appellant did not come across well can be understood here.
• At para. 21 the Judge does not accept the Appellant’s evidence that the Appellant needs to care for his wife as she works, she also supports her parents and there was no evidence to support the assertion that he cared for her in a significant way. It can be understood from this that he did not find his evidence on this issue to be impressive.

23. Considering the above, the Judge has given adequate reasons for finding that the Appellant did not come across well or that he did not give clear or factual answers. It is apparent from the decision as a whole that the Judge found the Appellant to be an unpersuasive or unreliable witness.

24. The issues in this appeal were clearly agreed as being whether the Appellant’s and his wife’s circumstances met Appendix FM EX.1 or GEN 3.2, or whether there would be a breach of Article 8 ECHR by his removal (see para.8 decision).

25. I have considered the papers and skeleton argument submitted before the FtT, alongside the decision as a whole. It is clear from the findings made, as summarised at para. 16 above, that the Judge addressed the matters raised and that he had regard to the evidence and arguments before him. Reading the decision as a whole, it can be understood from the findings of the FtT why it was found that the Appellant did not meet Appendix FM EX.1 and why it was found that there would not be unjustifiably harsh consequence / a breach of Article 8 ECHR by his removal. This is a determination which discloses the reasons for the Tribunal’s decision.

Notice of Decision

26. For the aforementioned reasons, I find that there are no material errors of law in the decision of the First-Tier Tribunal.

27. The appeal is dismissed.

P. Solanki

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

20 January 2026