UI-2025-004576

  • 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-2025-004576

First-tier Tribunal No: EU/54923/2023 LE/00779/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 24th February 2026

Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE NORTON-TAYLOR

Between
ABDELGHANI MEIK
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Decided without a hearing at Field House on 13 February 2026

ERROR OF LAW DECISION AND REASONS

Introduction
1. Mr Melik does not have legal representation. On 5 April 2023 he made an application for permission to stay in United Kingdom under Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules. That application was refused by the Secretary of State on 9 August 2023. Mr Melik appealed to the First-tier Tribunal against that decision. Mr Melik decided that his appeal should be dealt with without a hearing and the Secretary of State did not object to this.

2. On 22 June 2025, First-tier Tribunal Judge Jarvis dismissed (rejected) Mr Melik’s appeal. Mr Melik applied for permission to challenge that decision. A Judge of the Upper Tribunal granted permission on 6 November 2025. A hearing has been listed for 9 March 2026.

3. On 18 December 2025, the Secretary of State provided a document called a rule 24 response. This stated that the Secretary of State accepted that Judge Jarvis had made a legal mistake when dismissing Mr Melik’s appeal. The Secretary of State agreed that the Upper Tribunal could make a decision without a hearing, overturn Judge Jarvis’ decision, and send Mr Melik’s case back to the First-tier Tribunal for a new hearing.

4. In an email dated 11 February 2026, Mr Melik confirmed that he agreed to the Secretary of State’s proposal.


My decision and reasons
5. I consider that it is fair and in the interests of justice to make my decision without having a hearing. Both the Secretary of State and Mr Melik have agreed to this and there is no other good reason why there should still be a hearing. Therefore, I proceed to decide this appeal under rule 38 of the Upper Tribunal’s procedure rules.

6. Next, the Secretary of State is accepted that Judge Jarvis made a legal mistake when rejecting Mr Melik’s appeal. That acceptance is in my view perfectly sensible. There is no reason for me to disagree with it. Therefore, I make my decision under rule 40 of the procedure rules and find that Judge Jarvis materially erred in law, without setting out any detailed reasons. I set aside (overturn) his decision. I do not preserve any findings of fact (in other words, I overturn everything that he said in his decision).

7. It is clearly appropriate to send Mr Melik’s case back to the First-tier Tribunal for a complete rehearing. The parties are agreed to this, but in addition the error of law related to procedural unfairness.

8. I reiterate what has been said before: it would be in Mr Melik’s interests to attend a hearing before the First-tier Tribunal even if he is not legally represented.

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 and that decision is set aside.
I remit the case to the First-tier Tribunal for a complete rehearing.

Directions to the First-tier Tribunal
1. This appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal (Taylor House hearing centre) to be heard by a judge other than Judge Jarvis.


H Norton-Taylor
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

Dated: 13 February 2026