Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-004804

First-tier Tribunal No: EA/00270/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 24th February 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BRUCE
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALIS

Between

ATHZAZ AHSAN
(no ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Not in attendance
For the Respondent: Ms Newton, Senior Home Officer Presenting Officer

Heard at Manchester Civil Justice Centre on 10 February 2026

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant, a Pakistani national, aged 27 years of age, applied for an EEA Family permit on 21 September 2020 and this was refused by the Respondent on 15 January 2020 under the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2016. His appeal was listed as a paper case on 15 April 2025 and the First-tier Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the FtT) dismissed his appeal in a decision promulgated on 2 May 2025.
2. The Appellant lodged grounds of appeal arguing the FtT had failed to consider a bundle of documents that had been submitted on 15 April 2025 and in doing so there had been procedural unfairness. On 5 August 2025 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Parkes gave permission to appeal stating:
“The appeal was listed for hearing on the 15th of April 2025. The time on the Appellant's email is 3.58 p.m. The Appellant has not explained why, in breach of directions the bundle had not been submitted in advance of the hearing in line with directions. Given the time difference between Pakistan and the UK and the time on the Appellant's email it is not clear that the appeal had been submitted before the hearing. There has also been an issue with false emails being created in support of EUSS appeals. Permission to appeal is granted but the Appellant will have to show that the grounds would have been received before the Judge was allocated the papers and that the email submitted to show submission is genuine.”
3. The application was called on by us at 11:50am. There had been no appearance by the Sponsor although there was evidence on the Tribunal file that notice of this hearing had been sent to the Appellant by post on 16 January 2026. There was nothing on the file to suggest the notice had not been served. We were satisfied that the hearing should proceed.
4. We did not make an anonymity order as it was necessary on the facts of this case.
SUBMISSIONS
5. In his absence we proceeded on the basis that the Appellant relied on the grounds of appeal (paragraph 6) which stated that the Appellant had submitted a bundle of documents on 15 April 2025 by email consisting of 177 pages and the grounds referred to an accompanying email and an autogenerated email confirming receipt of the same.
6. Ms Newton relied on two Rule 24 responses albeit the Tribunal had only been provided with a copy of the supplemental Rule 24 response dated 12 November 2025. Ms Newton submitted that the Appellant had failed to comply with the directions contained in the grant of permission and had not provided the aforementioned 177-page bundle or the two emails referred to above. She submitted there was no procedural unfairness.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
7. Having considered the grounds of appeal and Ms Newton’s submissions we indicated there was no error in law and contained herein are our reasons.
8. The Appellant had made two applications under the Regulations which were refused by the Respondent on 15 January 2020 and 28 February 2023 respectively. The 28 February 2023 refusal had been appealed and dismissed by the Tribunal on 1 December 2023. The 15 January 2020 refusal was only appealed on 20 January 2025 according to the IAFT-5 form contained on pages 28-35 of the Court bundle. Although the time for appealing was well passed, no explanation (see section 3(a) of the IAFT-5 appeal form) for the late appeal was provided. On the papers before us it is not evident that time was ever extended by the First-tier Tribunal. Nevertheless, the Tribunal processed his appeal and at the Appellant’s request, listed the matter as a paper appeal on 15 April 2025. Directions for service of evidence by both parties was sent out on 5 March 2025 and the Respondent served a bundle of documents on 18 March 2025 which meant the Appellant had to serve his bundle of documents on or before 15 April 2025.
9. The FtT proceeded on the basis no documents had been served by the Appellant, and it was this approach that the Appellant argued was procedurally unfair and for which permission to appeal had been given. In granting permission to appeal Judge Parkes made clear that in order to show procedural unfairness the Appellant would have to show the bundle of evidence had been received by the Tribunal before the FtT was allocated the papers and Judge Parkes also made clear the Appellant also had to show any emails were genuine.
10. Our bundle consisted of 52 pages and despite directions issued by this Tribunal the Appellant failed to provide the following:
a. The two emails referred to in the grounds of appeal
b. The 177-page bundle
c. Evidence the bundle had been sent to the Tribunal before the case was allocated to the FtT
d. Evidence that the email he sought to rely on (which we did not have) was genuine.
11. The Appellant has not engaged with the Tribunal since permission to appeal had been granted. In the absence of the supporting evidence referred to above we were satisfied that the FtT dealt with the appeal on the papers that had been made available to it. There was therefore no material error in law.

Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal contained no material error of law. The decision is upheld.

SP ALIS

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

16 February 2026