Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-004274

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/59295/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 9th February 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ZUCKER

Between

SS
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Nawaz, Lawyer London Limited
For the Respondent: Ms Simbi, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 29th January 2026

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the Appellant is 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 could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant who was born in Tajikistan is a citizen of Russia. He arrived in the United Kingdom on 12th April 2022. By application dated 11th October 2022, whilst lawfully in the United Kingdom as a seasonal worker, he made application for international protection on the basis of conscientious objection to fighting in the war against Ukraine. On 14th March 2024 a decision was made to refuse the application against which the Appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal.
2. The appeal in the First-tier Tribunal was heard by Judge Prudham who in a decision dated 30th July 2025 dismissed the appeal on all grounds.
3. Not content with that decision the application, supported with grounds dated 12th August 2025, the Appellant sought permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal.
4. In issue before the First-tier Tribunal was whether the Appellant retained Tajikistani nationality notwithstanding his family move to Russia in 2014 and their acquisition of Russian citizenship and also the nature of the Appellant’s relationship with the partner he contended he had been in a relationship with for two years or more.
5. The Appellant appealed on four grounds, but I need not deal with the first three because permission was not eventually granted. However, the fourth ground was that the judge had erred in the Article 8 assessment by finding that the Appellant and his partner had not been living in a relationship akin to marriage for a period in excess of two years when such was not the test but rather the current Rule required only that the couple had been in a relationship for that period.
6. In a decision dated 12th September 2025 as I have already stated First-tier Tribunal Judge Aziz refused permission to appeal on Grounds 1 to 3 but granted permission on Ground 4. There was no application to renew the application before this Tribunal, therefore Ground 4 was the only ground before me and Mr Nawaz confirmed that to be the case. By Appendix FM GEN.1.2. for the purposes of this Appendix “partner” means the applicant’s
(i) spouse; or
(ii) civil partner; or
(iii) fiancé(e) or proposed civil partner; or
(iv) unmarried partner, where the couple have been in a relationship similar to marriage or civil partnership for at least two years before the date of the application.
7. In this case it is important to focus on what the grounds upon which the Appellant relied say. The grounds are divided into four subparagraphs. The first tackles the general Rule to which I have already referred and states:
“The judge is using a former definition of partner in Appendix FM which required 2 years cohabitation for unmarried partners. The revised definition states. ‘where the couple have been in a relationship.’ Applying the wrong, more arduous test, of course, leads to the wrong conclusion. The evidence is more than sufficient for A to be granted leave under GEN 3.2 since the consequences are unduly harsh for both of them”.
The grounds then go on to deal with other aspects of the Rule.
8. At paragraph 42 onwards the judge dealt with the issue. Mr Nawaz rightly accepted that the Rule in contention falls into two parts. First is the question of cohabitation. On that there is no issue. The judge applied the wrong test and erred but common to both is a requirement to prove a relationship of two years or more. The judge found that it had not been established that the Appellant and his partner had been in a relationship for the requisite period. That is dealt with as I have said from paragraphs 42 onwards. The grounds do not challenge that part.
9. It was somewhat disappointing how this case was presented. This case was first in the list. Mr Nawaz told me at the outset that he did not mind if his case was put to the back of the list and I obliged him. This case came on then over an hour after the start of the list. Mr Nawaz began by taking me to various documents which as far as I could see had nothing to do with the issue until eventually he took me to a document which showed the Appellant’s partner at a particular address, though he was not able, despite me affording him some time to do so, take me to any document which corresponded with the Appellant’s address even though as I have already said this was not a point upon which permission had been granted to appeal in any event.
10. I had no difficulty in finding that there was an error of law. However, I also had no difficulty in finding it was not material because the judge was entitled to find on the basis of the evidence that was available that it had not been established that at the material time the Appellant and his partner had been together for two years; a finding that was not challenged in the grounds.
11. In those circumstances this appeal is dismissed and insofar as there are other matters in respect of which application is made the proper course, if so advised and as Ms Simbi agreed, would be for the Appellant to make application to make a fresh claim. I do not suggest by that there would be any merit in so doing; that is not a matter for me. However I also note that insofar as new matters were raised the consent of the Secretary of State was not given.

Notice of Decision
The appeal of the Appellant to the Upper Tribunal is dismissed.
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal shall stand.

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

4 February 2026