Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-004183
UI-2025-004184
UI-2025-004186

First-tier Tribunal No: HU/62537/2024;
HU/63548/2024; HU/63550/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

26th May 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BULPITT

Between

BA
GA
HA
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

ENTRY CLEARANCE OFFICER
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms A Patyna, Counsel instructed by Asylum Aid
For the Respondent: Mr M Parvar, Senior Home Office Presenting officer

Heard at Field House on 8 May 2026

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellants and the sponsor are granted anonymity.

No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the appellant, likely to lead members of the public to identify the appellant or the sponsor. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS

1. Having been granted permission to do so, the three appellants, appeal against the decision of a First-tier Tribunal Judge (FTTJ) to dismiss their appeals against the respondents refusal to grant them entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom to join the sponsor, who has been recognised to be a refugee.

2. During the hearing of the appellants appeal, the respondent conceded that the FTTJ had erred in law and that the error was material such that her decision had to be set aside and a new decision made. On the basis of that concession I have determined that the FTTJ did err in law such that her decision must be set aside and the appeal be remitted to be decided afresh by a different Judge. My reasons for that decision follow.

Background

3. The sponsor is 25 years old. He came to the United Kingdom from Ethiopia as an unaccompanied child in December 2016. He was subsequently granted asylum and indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom, before he naturalised as a British citizen.

4. The three appellants submitted their applications for entry clearance in December 2023. They stated they were aged 18, 14 and 13. The first appellant said that she had been adopted and raised by the sponsor’s father in Ethiopia, the second appellant said he shares the same father as the sponsor and the third appellant said that she shares the same mother as the sponsor. They each said that they met the requirements for being granted entry clearance in accordance with Appendix Child Staying With or Joining Non-Parent Relative (Protection) of the Immigration Rules (Appendix CNP).

5. At the time of the appellants applications the eligibility requirements of Appendix CNP were as follows:

Eligibility requirements for a child to stay with or join a nonparent relative

CNP 3.1. The applicant must:
(a) be aged under 18 on the date of application; and
(b) not be married or in a civil partnership; and
(c) not have formed an independent family unit; and
(d) have an existing, genuine family relationship with the UK based relative; and
(e) have satisfactorily established their identity and nationality.

CNP 3.2. The decision maker must be satisfied that:
(a) the applicant can, and will, be accommodated and maintained adequately by the UK based relative, without access to public funds and in accommodation which the relative owns or occupies exclusively; and
(b) there are suitable arrangements for the applicant’s care and accommodation in the UK, which must comply with relevant UK legislation and regulations; and
(c) there are serious and compelling family or other considerations which make exclusion of the applicant undesirable.

CNP 3.3. Where an applicant does not meet the eligibility requirements of CNP.3.1. and CNP 3.2., the decision maker must consider whether a grant of permission to stay or entry clearance is appropriate based on exceptional circumstances which include where:

(a) the applicant has no parent with them; and
(b) the applicant has no family other than in the UK that could reasonably be expected to support them; and
(c) there is an existing, genuine family relationship between the applicant and the UK-based relative; and
(d) the applicant is dependent on the UK based relative.

CNP 3.4. Where the applicant does not meet the requirements in CNP 3.1. and CNP 3.2. and the decision maker is not satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances under CNP 3.3. consideration must be given to whether refusal of the application would be a breach of Article 8 ECHR, because such a refusal would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences for the applicant or their family member, whose Article 8 rights it is evident from the information provided would be affected by a decision to refuse the application.

6. The respondent refused the appellants applications concluding that the requirements of Appendix CNP had not been met. The respondent found that first appellant was not under 18 on the date of the application (CNP3.1(a)) and that none of the appellants had established: their identity (CNP3.1 (e)); that they have an existing, genuine family relationship with the sponsor (CNP3.1(d)); that they will not be accommodated and maintained adequately by the sponsor without access to public funds (CNP3.2(a)); that there are no exceptional circumstances which mean that entry clearance is appropriate (CNP3.3) and that the decision will not breach the Article 8 rights of the appellants or the sponsor (CNP3.4).

The FTTJ Decision

7. Having heard the appeal, which included oral evidence from the sponsor and a friend “S”, the FTTJ issued her decision on 25 June 2025. The decision is unarguably clear and detailed and it addresses each of the disputed issues.

a) In respect of CNP3.1(a), the Judge found that the first appellant’s birth certificate was genuine and that the first appellant was therefore 18 when she made her application (see [12]).

b) In respect of CNP3.1(e), contrary to the respondent’s arguments, the Judge found that the appellants had established their identity and that the second and third appellants are the half siblings of the sponsor. (see [13] and [14]). The Judge further found that the first appellant had been adopted by the sponsor’s father and was therefore a close relative of the sponsor (see [16]).

c) In respect of CNP3.1(d), the Judge found that the appellants did not have an existing genuine family relationship with the sponsor (see [17] explained at [18] – [25]).

d) In respect of CNP3.2(a), the Judge found that the appellants cannot be accommodated and maintained adequately by the sponsor without recourse to public funds (see [28]).

e) In respect of CNP3.3, the Judge found that there were not exceptional circumstances which meant that it was appropriate to grant entry clearance (see [32] explained at [29] – [31])

f) In respect of CNP3.4, the Judge found that refusal would not result in unjustifiably harsh consequences for the appellants or the sponsor (see [32]).

8. Applying these findings the Judge concluded that the appellants do not share a family life with the sponsor that engages Article 8 ECHR (see [33]) and in those circumstances dismissed the appeals.

The conceded error of law

9. In his submissions, Mr Parvar conceded that the FTTJ erred in law when reaching her conclusions that the sponsor did not have an existing genuine family relationship with the appellants and that the sponsor did not share a family life with the appellants that engaged Article 8 ECHR, because she failed to consider material evidence that was given by clinical psychologist Dr Sarah Heke in a report dated 1 August 2024. That evidence included (amongst other things) the opinion that the sponsor has developed “an extremely close attachment to his siblings”.

10. Although I had some initial reservations, because the FTTJ did say elsewhere in her decision that she had “considered everything that was before the Tribunal in reaching this decision”, I am satisfied that the respondent’s concession of an error of law is properly made. The Judge does not make any reference in her decision to the report by Dr Heke, despite the fact the appellants explicitly relied upon her evidence when claiming that there was an existing, genuine family relationship between the sponsor and the appellants which engaged Article 8 ECHR. Whilst the Judge was not bound to accept that such a relationship existed on the basis of Dr Heke’s evidence it was incumbent on her to address the evidence when reaching her conclusions about the existence such a relationship to enable the appellants to understand why they had lost their appeal. In the absence of any reference to Dr Heke’s at all it is impossible to conclude that it was adequately considered by the Judge or if it was why the Judge reached the conclusions she did notwithstanding that evidence.

11. Given the existence of an existing genuine family life and the engagement of Article 8 of the Convention were the key issues in the appeal I also accept the respondent’s concession that the error made was material to the Judge’s decision such that the decision to dismiss the appellant’s appeals must be set aside.

Remaking of the decision

12. The conceded error of law did not affect the Judge’s findings set out at 7(a), (b), and (d) above. The findings that the first appellant was 18 years old when she made her application, that the second and third appellants are half-siblings of the sponsor and that the first appellant is the adopted sister of the sponsor, and the finding that the appellants cannot be accommodated and maintained adequately by the sponsor without recourse to public funds, are all therefore, preserved.

13. By contrast findings about:

a) Whether the appellants have an existing genuine family relationship with the sponsor,

b) Whether there is a family life that engages Article 8(1) ECHR between the appellants and the sponsor

c) Whether there are exceptional circumstances which mean it would be appropriate to grant entry clearance to the appellants

d) Whether the refusal of entry clearance to the appellants would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences for the appellants or the sponsor

e) Whether in all the circumstances the refusal of entry clearance amounts to a disproportionate interference with any family life engaging Article 8(1) of the Convention the sponsor is found to share with the appellants

will each need to be made afresh.

14. I am satisfied that the extensive fact-finding that will be required to answer those questions means that, applying the relevant Practice Direction and the decision in Begum (Remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 00046 (IAC), it is appropriate to remit these appeals to the First-tier Tribunal for remaking rather than remaking the decision in the Upper Tribunal.

15. Because the appeals involve children and a sponsor who has been recognised to be a refugee I have maintained the anonymity order that was made by the FTTJ because it need to protect the appellants and sponsor outweighs the public interest in reporting the identities of those involved.

Notice of Decision

The decisions of the First-tier Tribunal Judge in these three linked appeals are set aside.

The appeals are remitted to be reconsidered by a different First-tier Tribunal Judge.

Luke Bulpitt

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

19 May 2026