Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-004783

First-tier Tribunal: HU/51849/2024
LH/06140/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 16th January 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE J F W PHILLIPS

Between

RACHID OULD ALI
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr N Sadeghi, Counsel
For the Respondent: Ms S Ahmed, Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 8 January 2026

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant appeals with permission against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 24 January 2025 dismissing his appeal against the Respondent’s decision refusing his human rights claim.
Background
2. The Appellant a citizen of Algeria claims, in summary, that he has been continuously resident in the United Kingdom for more than 20 years and so is entitled to leave to remain under the Immigration Rules and that having been in the United Kingdom continuously since 1999 that he also has a protected private life.
The appeal to the First-tier Tribunal
3. The Appellant’s appeal against the Respondent’s decision was heard by First-tier Tribunal Judge Chohan in an oral hearing on 15 August 2025. The Judge found that the Appellant had not shown that he met the requirements of the Immigration Rules in respect of family or private life and that his removal to Algeria was proportionate.
The appeal to the Upper Tribunal
4. The Appellant was granted permission to appeal the decision by Upper Tribunal Judge Reeds on 5 November 2025. Judge Reeds found it arguable, that the rejection of the evidence of the witness Abdelkader Rabehi, or the lack of findings on this evidence was material.
The hearing
5. Mr Sadeghi for the Appellant confirmed that the sole ground was whether the Judge failed to consider or to make adequate findings in respect of the witness Abdelkader Rabehi who gave written and oral evidence. His written statement was undated and unsigned, but he adopted it in oral testimony. He confirmed that he had known the Appellant since 2002 and that they were close friends. Whilst it was not incumbent upon the Judge to deal with every item of evidence, he needed to make a finding as to the credibility of the witness and there was no such finding. He was not entitled to reject the evidence without an express finding of credibility. The failure to provide reasons for rejecting the evidence of the witness was a material error of law.
6. Mr Ahmed relied on the rule 24 response. It was clear that the Judge considered the Appellant’s evidence as a whole. The Respondent’s position was that given the history of deception the Appellant’s evidence could not be trusted. The onus was on the Appellant to show uninterrupted residence. It was not possible for anyone including the witness to know if the Appellant’s residence was uninterrupted.
7. Mr Sadeghi responded to say that it was not in dispute that the Judge gave little or no weight to the evidence of the witness but nevertheless he needed to make an express finding as to the credibility of the witness. Mr Sadeghi said that he accepted that if the Judge expressly rejected the evidence of the witness there would be no error of law.
Findings – Error of Law
8. I have carefully considered the decision of the First-tier Tribunal and in particular the written evidence of the witness in question and the Judge’s assessment of the evidence including the evidence of this witness.
9. The witness statement is unsigned and undated, but I accept that the witness gave oral evidence and adopted that statement. It is a very short statement comprising ten sentences. The pertinent parts of that statement are that the witness claims to have known the Appellant since 2002 by the names Rachid Ould Ali and Rachid Blum, that he has been continuously living in the United Kingdom since 1999 and that they regularly meet up for meals and also ‘hang out’ together from time to time.
10. The Judge’s assessment records that in his oral evidence the witness confirmed that the Appellant had been in the United Kingdom illegally using a false name. The Judge then refers to all the letters in support along with all the other available evidence and notes in particular the gaps in the documentation referred to in the Respondent’s review. He concludes at paragraph 14
“Having considered all the evidence, I am not satisfied that the appellant has been continuously resident in the United Kingdom for over 20 years. As such, he does not meet the requirements of the immigration rules”.
11. In my judgement it was not incumbent upon the Judge to make a specific adverse credibility finding on the evidence of the witness. It is abundantly clear that he found the evidence of the witness unreliable. There were very good reasons for this. The witness statement, adopted at the hearing, is extremely brief. It does not seek to address continuity of residence in any meaningful way. It merely says that having known the Appellant since 2002 “I am aware that he has been continuously living in the UK since 1999”. In the first place if the statement is accepted at face value the only way that the witness could have known that the Appellant had been living in the United Kingdom for three years before he met him would be if the Appellant told him so. Equally there is no suggestion in the statement that the witness and the Appellant ever cohabited or had a day-to-day relationship or were in such close contact that the witness would know if the Appellant had left the United Kingdom during the lengthy period which he claimed to have known him. There is no detail at all to give any indication of how the witness could have known that his residence was continuous. Indeed and in the absence of any other explanation the only way the witness could have given this assurance would be that if the Appellant told him that his residence had been continuous. The Judge found the evidence of the Appellant to be unreliable, and it must follow that the Judge would not accept as reliable the evidence of a witness who was giving evidence based upon what the Appellant had told him.
12. In my judgment the decision of the First-tier Tribunal reveals that the Judge cosndiered the evidence holistically and reached a conclusion that was open to him. There is no material error of law and I uphold the decision.

Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve the making of a material error on a point of law. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal stands.

Judge J F W Phillips
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal

12 January 2026