Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-003433

First-tier Tribunal No: EU/54067/2024 and LE/01320/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 13 October 2025

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LOKE

Between

SABA SALAH UD DIN
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Raza, Counsel instructed by Loxford Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms Tariq, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on Tuesday 30 September 2025 Field House

DECISION AND REASONS

BACKGROUND

1. The Appellant appeals against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Abdar dated 29 April 2025 (“the Decision”) dismissing the Appellant’s appeal against the Respondent’s decision dated 11 May 2024 refusing the Appellant’s application for settled status under the European Union Settled Status Scheme (‘The EUSS Scheme’).

2. The Appellant appeals the Decision on two grounds as follows:

Ground 1: the Judge failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting the Appellants account.
Ground 2: The Judge failed to give sufficient weight to the evidence of the passport.

3. Permission to appeal was granted by Judge Gumsley on 30 July 2025.

4. I had before me a bundle running to 402 pages (pdf) ([B/xx]) containing the documents relevant to the appeal before us, and the Appellant’s and Respondent’s bundles before the First-tier Tribunal. There has been no Rule 24 Reply from the Respondent.

5. Having heard from both representatives I determined that there had been an error of law. I proceeded to remake the decision and I allowed the appeal. I indicated that would provide my reasons in writing, which I turn now to do.

DISCUSSION

6. The passport is the key supporting document in this case. The Appellant’s two passports were provided in their entirety. The first passport at B/79 shows the Appellant’s entry into the United Kingdom. Thereafter the passport is empty. The second passport at B/99 indicates at B/100 that the previous passport was indeed the passport at B/79. Thereafter the second passport is also empty. This evidence supports the Appellant’s account that she did not leave the United Kingdom after her entry on 27 November 2018.

7. Judge Abdar made reference to the passport at paragraph 11 of the Decision, however gave no reasons as to why he did not find this to be supportive of the Appellant’s account that she had not left the United Kingdom. I note that Judge Abdar heard this appeal on the papers. That being the case, there were no oral submissions made to him, or it seems to me unfortunately any skeleton argument drawing his attention to the main documents in this case. The passport was but one of a plethora of other documentation that had been provided. The Respondent’s review at B/398 made no reference to the passport at all. In the circumstances the significance of the passport, namely the fact that both passports followed on from each other and both were entirely blank, may have been easily lost.

8. I do find that that is an error in law in the decision, namely that the Judge failed to take into account relevant evidence, namely the passport in his decision making. That being the case I set the decision of Judge Abdar aside.

9. I indicated that I was minded to proceed to re-hear the case. There being no objections to this course of action, I heard submissions from both representatives. I make the following findings:

(a) The passport is cogent supporting evidence which indicates that the Appellant did not leave the United Kingdom upon entering on 27 November 2018.
(b) This evidence is further supported by the fact that the Appellant’s daughter attended school from March 2019 to July 2022.
(c) The bank statements are not definitive, and I echo Judge Abdar’s reservations at paragraph 14, however they and the other bills provided by the Appellant give some further support for the Appellant’s case.

10. On balance I am satisfied the Appellant has been continuously resident in the United Kingdom for at least five years. That being the only objection to the Appellant’s application, I am satisfied that the Appellant meets the requirements of EU11 and EU11A of Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules and her appeal is allowed.

11. By way of parenthesis, there was an application to adduce further evidence in support of the Appellant’s case, namely the settlement documents of family members which had been granted after the Appellant’s appeal. I did not admit these documents on the basis that they were irrelevant to the determination of the issue in this appeal, which was the Appellant’s length of continuous residence.

NOTICE OF DECISION

There is an error of law in the Decision of Judge Abdar. I therefore set the Decision aside and I remake the decision and allow the appeal.

S Y Loke
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Loke
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

3 October 2025