Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-003491
First-tier Tribunal No: HU/58766/2024
LH/01253/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 17th of June 2026

Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE NORTON-TAYLOR

Between
SIMONE CARMEN JOHNSON
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

ENTRY CLEARANCE OFFICER
Respondent

Decided without a hearing on 10 June 2026

ERROR OF LAW DECISION AND REASONS

Introduction
1. I have decided this appeal without a hearing. This is further to the appellant’s request and the agreement of the respondent. I have considered whether it is in any event appropriate not to hold a hearing and have concluded that it is both fair and in the interests of justice to proceed in accordance with the parties’ agreed position.

2. The appellant is an unrepresented citizen of South Africa, born in 1996. On 5 February 2024 she made an application for entry clearance as an unmarried partner. That application was refused by the respondent on 6 June 2024. The appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. Her appeal was decided without a hearing by First-tier Tribunal Judge Sweet. By his decision, promulgated on 31 May 2025, the appellant’s appeal was dismissed on Article 8 ECHR grounds.

3. The appellant made an application for permission to appeal, asserting that the judge had considered the wrong immigration rule, that he had failed to properly consider GEN3.2 Of the immigration rules and Article 8, and that he had failed to address an argument relating to Article 14.

4. The First-tier Tribunal granted permission on the GEN3.2/Article 8 ground only.

Conclusions
5. Whilst I exercise appropriate caution before interfering with a decision of the First-tier Tribunal, in the present case I am quite satisfied that the judge has erred in law. He was entitled to conclude that the particular eligibility provisions of Appendix FM could not be satisfied by the appellant, but it was necessary for him then to go on and provide an assessment of proportionality set in the context of whether there were exceptional circumstances which would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences for the appellant and/or her partner). That assessment would need to be supported by reasons, albeit brief in nature.

6. No such assessment has been undertaken by the judge. That is a material error of law.

Disposal
7. Given the judge’s failure to have engaged with proportionality at all, I conclude that this appeal should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a rehearing. Not all issues will need to be looked at again: it is clear that the appellant cannot meet the eligibility requirements of Appendix FM. The live issue will be whether the respondent’s decision disproportionately interferes with the appellant’s family life with her partner.

Anonymity
8. There is no basis for making an anonymity direction in this case and I do not do so.

Notice of Decision
The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did involve the making of an error on a point of law.
I set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal to the extent set out at paragraph 7 of this error of law decision.
I remit the case to the First-tier Tribunal.

Directions to the First-tier Tribunal
1. This appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal (Hatton Cross hearing centre) for a rehearing, subject to what is said in this error of law decision;
2. The remitted appeal shall not be decided by First-tier Tribunal Judge Sweet;
3. The First-tier Tribunal will issue any further case management directions deemed appropriate

H Norton-Taylor
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
Dated: 10 June 2026