Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-004849
(EU/56270/2024)

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 11 May 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BRUCE

Between

HALA SAIDAM
(no anonymity order made)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: -
For the Respondent: Mr McVeety, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Civil Justice Centre, Manchester on the 5 May 2026

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant is a national of Sweden date of birth 30 November 1993. She seeks leave to remain in the United Kingdom pursuant to the provisions of Appendix EU.
2. Mrs Saidam contends that she, her husband and children arrived and began their residence in the UK on the 15 June 2020. She states that they remained living in Manchester throughout 2020 and were living here on the specified date of 31 December 2020, and as such she qualifies for leave. The Secretary of State, by her decision dated 15 May 2024, found there to be insufficient evidence to establish residence at the relevant time, and refused the application.
3. Mrs Saidam appealed against that decision and on the 1 September 2025 the matter came before the First-tier Tribunal sitting at Manchester. There was no appearance by Mrs Saidam. The Tribunal noted that the notice of hearing had been uploaded to ‘MyHMCTS’ on the 15 August 2025; Mrs Saidam herself had uploaded some additional documents on the 28 August 2025. The Tribunal deduced from this that she must have been aware of the hearing, and decided to proceed in her absence. The appeal was dismissed on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to discharge the burden of proof in proving residence at the relevant time.
4. Mrs Saidam, who is a litigant in person, has appealed on several grounds, but the central issue before me is whether there was a procedural unfairness in the First-tier Tribunal proceeding in her absence. In granting permission to appeal, Upper Tribunal Judge Owens alludes to the crux of Mrs Saidam’s case: she is an unpaid carer for her husband (who has recently undergone treatment for a brain tumour) and children; she does not work outside the home, so what documentary evidence might she produce? Her oral evidence was of particular importance in those circumstances. Judge Owens also refers to research apparently undertaken by First-tier Tribunal Dhanji, who had earlier refused permission. Judge Dhanji could see from the First-tier Tribunal record system that Mrs Saidam had in fact attended court on the day of her hearing, but had left before her case could be called on, explaining to staff that there was an emergency at home and that she had to leave.
5. With his customary fairness, Mr McVeety was quick to acknowledge that the fact that Ms Saidam had actually been at court that day does not appear to have been brought to the Tribunal’s attention. Had it been aware of that matter, its decision may have been otherwise. If Mrs Saidam was going to find it difficult to attend court due to childcare issues etc, her attendance could be facilitated by CVP. There was therefore a procedural unfairness in the decision, albeit one not of the Tribunal’s making. Mr McVeety invited me to remit the matter to the First-tier Tribunal for hearing de novo. He helpfully informed me that Mrs Saidam’s husband has a pending appeal before the First-tier Tribunal, and agreed it would be sensible to join those two matters.

Decision and Directions
6. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside for procedural unfairness.
7. The matter is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard de novo, and should be joined with the appeal of Mr Abdallah Mahmood Saidan EU/53037/2026.
8. There is no order for anonymity in this appeal.

Upper Tribunal Judge Bruce
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
5 May 2026