UI-2025-003806

  • 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-2025-003806

First-tier Tribunal No: EU/51675/2024
LE/00543/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
1st of October 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KHAN

Between

MANUEL REYES MATOS
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETRAY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent


DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant is a national of Spain. On 4 June 2025, First-tier Tribunal Judge Wolfson dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the respondent’s refusal to grant him an EUSS settlement permit under Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules as a dependent family member of a relevant EEA national.
2. Permission to appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal was granted on 19 August 2025 by First-tier Tribunal Judge Saffer. In granting permission, he stated ’It is arguable that, unbeknown to the Judge, the appellant was not contacted prior to the hearing by email with joining details for the hearing, and accordingly that proceeding in his absence may have been unfair’.
3. On 18 September 2025, the respondent filed a Rule 24 response. In her response at [4] she stated ‘In light of all the information available to the respondent, she is prepared to accept that it is unlikely that any CVP link was sent to the appellant. On that basis, the respondent is prepared to accept that, though no faut of the Judge, a procedural irregularity occurred which amounted to an unfairness. Given the issues in the appeal, such unfairness amounts to a material error of law’.
4. At [5] of her response, the respondent stated that the appropriate course would be for the Upper Tribunal to set aside the decision of the First-tier-Tribunal without any preserved findings and remit the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh hearing.
5. In light of the respondent’s Rule 24 response, I agree that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal to proceed to hear the appeal without the CVP link being sent to the appellant was a procedural irregularity which amounts to an error of law.
6. I therefore allow the appeal and set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 4 June 2025, and applying the guidance in AB (preserved FtT findings; Wisniewski principles) Iraq [2020] UKUT 268 (IAC) preserve no findings of fact.
7. Having regard to paragraph 7.2. of the Senior President’s Practice Statement for the Immigration and Asylum Chambers, and the extent of the fact-finding required, I remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard afresh by a judge other than First-tier Tribunal Judge Wolfson.
Notice of the decision
8. The appeal is allowed, and the decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside with no preserved findings.
9. The case is remitted to the First-Tier Tribunal to be heard afresh.


K.A.Khan
(Duty Judge)

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber


24 September 2025