Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-003857
UI-2025-003860
UI-2025-003861

First-tier Tribunal No: EA/00305/2025
EA/00306/2025
EA/00307/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 7th January 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE O’CALLAGHAN
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WILLIAMS

Between

MISBAH SHARIF
AYESHA QADOOS
ABDUL HASEEB
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellants
and

AN ENTRY CLEARANCE OFFICER
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellants: No appearance for the Appellants
For the Respondent: Dr S Ibisi, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Manchester Civil Justice Centre on 5 December 2025

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellants appeal a decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Buckwell (‘the Judge’), sent to the parties on 6th June 2025. By his decision, the Judge dismissed the appellants’ appeal against the respondent’s refusal of their applications for Family Permits under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (‘the EEA Regulations’).
Background
2. The appellants are related in that the first appellant, Misbah Sharif, is the mother of the second and third appellants. On 24th November 2019, the appellants applied for EEA Family Permits to join the sponsor, Qumar Sharif, a national of Italy. There is no dispute between the parties that the appellants are related as claimed to the sponsor, i.e. he is the brother of the first appellant and the uncle of the second and third appellants, nor is it disputed he is an Italian national.
3. The respondent refused the applications by identically worded decision letters on 18th December 2019. She acknowledged the provision of thirteen money transfer receipts made by the sponsor to the first appellant but did not consider these as evidence of dependency. There was also evidence provided that the appellants lived in a house owned by the sponsor, but they had not provided evidence that it was their ‘main residence’.
4. Evidence of the sponsor’s income and expenditure was considered, as was the evidence of the income of the sponsor’s wife, which was not considered reliable due to spelling and grammatical errors on the letter provided by her employer. The respondent also noted the sponsor had supported the applications of five other family members, who all claimed to be financially dependent upon him. This was not considered to be sustainable, and the respondent indicated her concern that the appellants would become a burden on the public funds system (sic) of the United Kingdom.
The appeal to the First-tier Tribunal
5. The appellants exercised their right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal, and their appeals came before the Judge to be decided ‘on the papers’ on 27th May 2025. By a decision dated 6th June 2025, the Judge dismissed the appeals. His reasons, heading ‘findings’, are reproduced in their entirety below.
6. The appellants sought permission to appeal on three grounds. First, it was asserted there was procedural unfairness as a result of the Judge’s failure to consider the evidence provided by the appellants. Secondly, it was said the Judge had failed to assess whether the appellants had in fact established their dependency upon the sponsor, and finally, that the Judge had failed to provide adequate reasons for his finding that the appellants were not dependent upon the sponsor.
7. Permission was granted on all grounds by First-tier Tribunal Judge Grimes on 13th August 2025. As far as the first ground was concerned, Judge Grimes noted the appellants’ bundle was on the court file, and that the Judge had made reference to the evidence provided by the appellants. Despite that observation, the grant of permission was not restricted. It is on this basis that the appeal comes before us.
The hearing before the Upper Tribunal
8. In advance of the hearing, we were provided with a composite bundle of 209 pages. The appellants were not represented at the hearing, nor did the sponsor attend. Notice of hearing was sent to the sponsor by post on 12th November 2025. We were satisfied that notice was effective and that the sponsor opted not to attend the hearing.
9. At the hearing before us, Dr Ibisi indicated the appeal continued to be opposed in respect of both grounds, for the reasons set out in the rule 24 notice provided by the respondent dated 3rd September 2025. There were a number of questions we had about the respondent’s position, and we are grateful to Dr Ibisi for the assistance she provided at the hearing. We indicated we were satisfied there was a material error of law in the decision of the Judge and now give our reasons for that conclusion.
Analysis
Ground One
10. The first ground advanced by the appellants was the Judge’s putative failure to consider the evidence provided in their bundle. We have no hesitation in concluding that the Judge did indeed take into account the evidence provided by the appellants.
11. At [2] of his decision, the Judge makes reference to having access to the files and folders on Microsoft Teams and specifically mentions ‘documents filed by the appellants and on behalf of the respondent’.
12. At [5], the Judge notes ‘the appellants provided documentary evidence in the course of these appeals’ and confirms at [7] that ‘all aspects of the documentary evidence are taken into account, whether or not superficially referred to hereafter’.
13. It is clear in our judgment that the Judge did take into account the evidence which had been provided by the appellants. We therefore find that ground one is not made out, and there is no error of law in this respect.
Grounds Two and Three
14. Whilst the second and third grounds are pleaded discretely, they are in effect the same challenge, i.e. that the Judge failed to engage with the evidence before him and did not provide adequate reasons for his finding that the appellants were not dependent upon the sponsor.
15. The Judge details the question that he was to resolve at [6]. The issue in dispute between the parties was whether the appellants had shown, on the balance of probabilities, that they were dependent upon the sponsor. In support of their appeals, the appellants had provided evidence of the income of their sponsor and his wife in the United Kingdom. The documentary evidence before the Judge also included money transfer receipts, proof of the appellants’ residence in a house said to be owned by the sponsor, as well as affidavits of dependency and receipts for expenditure by the appellants.
16. As the grounds identify, the Judge made no reference at any of this evidence in his consideration of the question of dependency. The task before the Judge can be summarised with reference to Budhathoki (reasons for decisions) [2014] UKUT 00341 (IAC); that it is ‘necessary for First-tier Tribunal judges to identify and resolve the key conflicts in the evidence and explain in clear and brief terms their reasons for preferring one case to the other so that the parties can understand why they have won or lost’ [14].
17. In the instant appeal, there was no consideration given to the evidence provided by the appellants. There were a number of points raised by the respondent in the refusal which were not resolved by the Judge. We do not know whether the Judge accepted the evidence given by the appellants that they lived in a house owned by the sponsor. We also do not know whether or not the Judge took the income of the sponsor’s wife into account, against the background of the respondent’s concerns about her employment evidence. A fair reading of the decision would not disclose to the appellants why they had ‘lost’ their appeals.
18. The point the Judge did take into account when determining the appeals was the sponsor’s ability to support the appellants financially when he had been identified by the respondent as the sponsor of another five family members. Whilst this point clearly has a bearing upon the sponsor’s ability to provide for the essential needs of the appellants, especially in light of what appears to be a limited income, it was not evidenced before the Judge.
19. As we raised with Dr Ibisi at the hearing, the respondent did not evidence the assertion made in the refusal decisions about the sponsor’s role in these other applications. The Judge was not provided with the names of the family members, nor was he provided with the outcome of the applications, nor any information about whether the family members were still being supported by the sponsor at the time the appellants made their applications.
20. The evidence before the Judge included the first appellant’s witness statement where she detailed the fact that another one of her brothers, Amir Sharif, had entered the United Kingdom in late 2019 and had ‘joined’ the sponsor. It was also asserted that he was now contributing to the sponsor’s household. If Mr Sharif was one of the five family members the respondent was concerned with, clearly this would be one less person the sponsor was supporting at the time of the applications.
21. The Judge did not engage with this evidence at all. Accordingly, we are satisfied that the Judge did not provide adequate reasons for his finding that the appellants were not dependent upon the sponsor. We find there was a material error of law, such that the decision should be set aside.

Disposal
22. Turning to the disposal of the hearing, we have considered AEB [2022] EWCA Civ 1512 and Begum (Remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 00046 (IAC). There is one narrow issue in dispute, the issue of dependency. The appeal will be retained in the Upper Tribunal. In order to assist our remaking, we made a number of directions which were communicated to Dr Ibisi at the hearing.
23. Before this decision was promulgated, Dr Ibisi provided further information on the applications made by the sponsor’s family. It was confirmed the sponsor’s wife Fahmeeda Shakrullah, and two of his daughters Munahal Qumar and Saba Qumar, were granted settled status and now reside at the same address as the sponsor.
Directions
24. We direct the following:
i. By 4pm on 9th January 2026, the respondent is to file and serve evidence pertaining to the five additional family members referred to in the refusal decisions. That evidence includes but is not limited to copies of their applications, and refusal letters any appeal determinations (if applicable). The respondent is also to confirm whether any of the applications were granted, and if so, the date of entry to the United Kingdom.
ii. Permission is given to the respondent to file written submissions by the same date if so advised.
iii. By 4pm on 9th January 2026, the appellants are to confirm to the Tribunal whether they are content for the Tribunal to determine the appeal on the papers, or whether they would prefer an oral hearing. In absence of any response by 4pm on 9th January 2026, the appeal will proceed to an oral hearing.
Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is vitiated by a material error of law and is set aside in its entirety. The appeal will be retained in the Upper Tribunal for remaking.

CJ Williams

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

22nd December 2025