Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-005604
First-tier Tribunal No: HU/55977/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 25th February 2026

Before

Deputy upper tribunal JUDGE Kelly

Between

AZRA BEGUM
(ANONYMITY NOT ORDERED)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Nasim, Counsel instructed by Legal Rights Partnership
For the Respondent: Mr McVitie, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer.

Heard at Bradford on the 16th February 2026

DECISION AND REASONS
Introduction
1. The Appellant is a female citizen of Pakistan. The Respondent refused her application for permission to stay in the United as her husband’s partner, and her appeal against that refusal was dismissed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Ali on the 10th September 2025. Judge Aldridge granted permission to appeal against Judge Ali’s decision on the 8th December 2025, and hence the matter came before me.

The appellant’s case
2. The essence of the appellant’s case before the First-tier Tribunal was as follows.
3. The appellant entered the United Kingdom on the 5th July 2017 with 6 months’ leave to remain as a visitor. She and her sponsor - Ansar Mahmood, a British national – celebrated their marriage in an Islamic ceremony (‘Nikah’) on the 26th October 2019. They have continuously cohabited since that time. They registered their marriage in accordance with the law of England and Wales on the 4th January 2023.
4. The sponsor has three children from a previous relationship. The appellant enjoys a particularly close relationship with one of those children: Zaara Mahmood. Zaara has resided with the appellant and the sponsor since she was aged fourteen whilst also having extended staying contact with her biological mother. Zaara was aged eighteen at the date of the appellant’s application and twenty at the date of Judge Ali’s decision.
5. The appellant has two surviving close family members: her sister (Zubaida, a British national resident in the United Kingdom) and her brother (Maroof, a Pakistani national resident in Pakistan). Maroof previously threatened to kill the appellant if she did not marry his wife’s cousin. The appellant consequently fears that he would harm her should she return to Pakistan.
6. The sponsor has three surviving close family members; his mother and two sisters each of whom resides in Pakistan.
7. The appellant suffers from a recurrent depressive disorder with psychotic symptoms.
Findings of the First-tier Tribunal
8. Judge Ali noted that the factual basis of the appellant’s case (summarised at paragraphs 3 to 7, above) was not in issue [21]. He nevertheless concluded that the appellant did not satisfy the requirements of the Immigration Rules [22, 23] and had not raised exceptional circumstances such as to render her removal disproportionate in furtherance of the legitimate public interest in maintaining immigration controls [24]. His reasons for so concluding may be conveniently summarised as follows.
9. Whilst aged eighteen at the date of the application, Zaara was now an adult. She was moreover a British citizen who had a genuine and subsisting relationship with each of her biological parents and there was no evidence to suggest that Zaara was dependent upon the appellant. To the contrary, the evidence showed that Zaara had been in paid employment until April 2025 and that it was she who had provided practical assistance to the appellant in preparing for the appeal hearing [22]. The appellant had always known that her residence in the United Kingdom (following the expiration of her 6-month leave to remain) had been without a lawful basis. The appellant had spent her formative years and most of her life residing in Pakistan. She was consequently familiar with the culture and lifestyle of that country. It would moreover be open to Ansar Mahmood to relocate with the appellant to Pakistan and for Zaara to reside with her biological mother [23].
10. Given the above, the appellant’s removal to Pakistan would be neither contrary to Section Ex of Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules nor a disproportionate interference with the appellant’s right to respect for private and family life [24].
11. Additionally, (1) the appellant’s “bare assertion” that she feared being harmed by her brother on return to Pakistan did not suffice to substantiate her claim, and this would need to be addressed, “under the correct route of protection or asylum”, (2) whilst it was accepted that the appellant was receiving medication in the UK for her depressive disorder there was no evidence to show that such treatment would not be available or accessible to her in Pakistan, and (3) it would be open to appellant to make a future application to join the sponsor in the UK should she be able to meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules [24].
The grounds of appeal
12. The grounds of appeal may be conveniently summarised as follows –
(1) The judge, “misconstrued the provisions [of the Immigration Rules concerning ‘qualifying children’] and failed to take into account the following uncontested facts”, namely, that Zaara (a) has lived and had a close bond with the appellant from the age of 14, (b) was continuing to reside with her father for 4 nights a week, and (c) was aged 18 at the date of application.
(2) In considering whether there were “insurmountable obstacles” to the appellant’s married life continuing in Pakistan, the judge failed, “to take into account and give due weight” to detailed submissions of the appellant’s representative, with particular reference to (a) the appellant’s lack of any immediate family with whom, “she can go and live with in Pakistan”, (b) her subjective fear of her brother, (c) her close relationship with Zaara, (d) her recurrent depressive disorder, (e) the sponsor’s inability to accompany her to Pakistan given (i) the fact that his children and grandchildren reside in the UK, and (ii) the financial support that he provides to his mother and sister in the UK.
(3) The judge failed to consider the appellant’s fear of her brother on return to Pakistan under Articles 3 and/or 8 of the European Human Rights Convention.
(4) The judge failed to consider whether the cumulative effect of the above, (a) amounted to ‘exceptional circumstances’ under GEN.3.2 of Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules, (b) outweighed the public interest under Article 8(2) of the European Human Rights Convention “outside the Immigration Rules” [grounds 4 and 5].
(5) The judge irrationally found that there was no evidence to suggest that Zaara was dependent on the appellant despite Zaara having provided details of such dependency in a written statement upon which she was not cross-examined at the hearing [ground 6].
Analysis
13. At the outset of the hearing, Mr McVitie conceded that the judge erred as pleaded in the third ground (above) and that they ought therefore to have considered whether the appellant’s claimed fear of her brother on return to Pakistan was well-founded, both for the purposes of a human rights claim under Article 3 (right to freedom from torture or other inhuman treatment) and as a possible obstacle to integration on return under Article 8 (right to respect for private life) of the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. He also conceded that this error infected the judge’s decision as a whole and that the appeal should accordingly be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a complete rehearing. Given those concessions, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the other grounds of appeal.
Notice of Decision
14. The appeal is allowed and remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a complete rehearing before a judge other than Judge Ali.

David Kelly Date: 16th February 2026
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber