UI-2025-004818

• Status of case: Unreported
• Hearing date: 23 Jul 2026
• Promulgation date: 03 Aug 2026
• Publication date: 21 Aug 2026
• Last updated on: 21 Aug 2026

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case Nos.: UI-2025-004818
First-tier Tribunal No: EU/55802/2023
LE/02565/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 3 August 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GREY

Between

ERALADO LACKA
Appellant
And

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

DECISION AND REASONS
MADE WITHOUT A HEARING PURSUANT TO
RULE 34 OF THE TRIBUNAL PROCEDURE (UPPER TRIBUNAL) RULES 2008


1. The Appellant appeals against the decision of First-tier Tribunal (“FtT”) Judge Abebrese (the “Judge”) promulgated on 31 August 2025 (“the Decision”) dismissing the Appellant’s appeal against the Respondent’s decision refusing his EUSS application following a hearing on 21 January 2025.

2. The appellant’s grounds of challenge to the Decision are that the Judge misdirected himself as to the burden of proof in marriage of convenience cases; failed to engage with, or make findings on, fundamental evidence central to the Appellant’s case; and further, the delay of over seven months between the hearing and the promulgation of the decision undermines the safety of the findings.

3. Permission to appeal was granted on all grounds by FtTJ Elliot on 14 October 2025 in the following terms:

2. The grounds assert that the Judge erred in failing to apply the correct burden of proof, failed to engage with or make adequate findings on the evidence given at the appeal hearing and that the unexplained delay of over seven months in the promulgation of the decision rendered the Judge’s decision potentially unsafe.

3. The grounds raise an arguable error of law in the First-tier Tribunal’s approach to the burden of proof. The Judge stated that the appellant bore the burden of proof throughout, despite the appeal being against a refusal under the EUSS on the basis of a marriage of convenience. In such cases, following Sadovska v SSHD (2017) UKSC 54, the burden lies initially with the respondent to establish reasonable grounds for suspecting a marriage of convenience, before any evidential burden shifts to the appellant. It is arguable that the Judge’s treatment of the burden may have materially affected the assessment of the evidence.

4. The decision was promulgated more than seven months after the hearing. There is no explanation for that deal in the body of the decision. While delay alone does not establish an error of law, it may give rise to concerns about the reliability of the Judge’s recollection and the overall fairness of the proceedings which may provide support for the assertion that the Judge has failed to engage with the evidence and make adequate findings.

5. Permission to appeal on all grounds raised is granted.

4. By a Rule 24 response dated 23 October 2025 the Respondent indicated that she did not oppose the Appellant’s appeal. This was confirmed by the Respondent in her response to directions dated 9 July 2026.

5. In accordance with the Respondent’s concession, I therefore find there to be an error of law in the Decision. I set the Decision aside in its entirety and remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal for re-hearing before any Judge other than Judge Abebrese.


NOTICE OF DECISION
The Decision of Judge Abebrese promulgated on 31 August 2025 involved the making of an error of law. I therefore set aside that Decision in its entirety. I remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal for re-hearing before any Judge other than Judge Abebrese.


S Grey
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
23 July 2026