Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-005686
First-tier Tribunal No: EA/00787/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 28th of April 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HOBBS

Between

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Appellant
and

SIMRANJEET KAUR
ANONYMITY ORDER NOT MADE
Respondent

Representation:
For the appellant: Not represented
For the respondent: Mrs. R. Abdul-Karim, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Birmingham Civil Justice Centre on 14 April 2026

DECISION AND REASONS
1. This is an appeal against a decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Revill (the “Judge”), promulgated on 26 September 2025, in which she allowed Ms. Kaur’s appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision to refuse her application for leave to remain under the EU Settlement Scheme (‘EUSS’). Ms. Kaur is a national of India who applied for leave as the spouse of her sponsor, a Bulgarian national.
2. For the purposes of this decision, I refer to Ms. Kaur as the appellant, and to the Secretary of State as the respondent, reflecting their positions as they were before the First-tier Tribunal.
3. Permission to appeal was granted by First-tier Tribunal Judge Dieu in a decision dated 21 November 2025 as follows:
“The grounds submit that the decision of the FTTJ erred procedurally in permitting evidence not served upon the respondent to be relied upon. Given that the FTTJ placed weight at [16] to it having been served upon the respondent and not disputed or responded to, it is arguable that the
FTTJ had erred in fact. It is arguable that it is material since the respondent disputes that the wrong sponsor had been linked to the application. The issue of whether in fact the evidence was provided to the respondent will need to be resolved.”
4. In a Rule 24 response Ms. Kaur disputed the grounds and provided evidence of correspondence with the Tribunal and the respondent.
The hearing
5. The appellant is unrepresented. There was no attendance by her or on her behalf. In an email dated 22 January 2026 she stated that she was not well and asked for three or four weeks before listing. The email stated that she would contact the Tribunal. It does not appear that she did, but the hearing was listed for over eight weeks after the date of her email, and notification was sent to her.
6. The clerk tried to contact her on the number ending 817 which was the number given to the respondent when she made her application. There was no response.
7. The appellant had provided a Rule 24 response to which she attached various documents, including copies of emails sent to the respondent. Not all of this accompanying documentation had been included in the hearing bundle. I provided a copy to Mrs. Abdul-Karim and gave her time to consider it. She did not request an adjournment or ask for further time.
8. I considered whether it was in the interests of justice to proceed to hear the appeal in the absence of the appellant. I bore in mind that this is the respondent’s appeal. The appellant provided a full rebuttal to the grounds of appeal in her Rule 24 response, including evidence in support. The grant of permission stated that “The issue of whether in fact the evidence was provided to the respondent will need to be resolved”, and the appellant had provided evidence to show this.
9. Taking all of the above into account. I considered that it was in the interests of justice to proceed to determine the appeal in accordance with rule 38 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008.
10. I heard oral submissions from Mrs. Abdul-Karim. I stated that I would consider whether to make further directions in the event that I considered it necessary, having considered the appeal in the light of her submissions. Having carefully considered the evidence, I do not deem it necessary, and I set out my decision below. Page reference are either to the Upper Tribunal hearing bundle (“HB”), or to the bundle of documents provided with the appellant’s Rule 24 response (“AB”).
Error of law
11. The grounds allege a procedural error, submitting that the appellant did not serve her bundle on the respondent prior to the hearing. I have carefully considered the respondent’s allegation, and I find that it is not made out. I have carefully considered the documents provided to the respondent, and when they were provided. The appeal was determined on the papers, on 24 September 2025. It was a “legacy” case, and so it was not on the HMCTS portal.
12. At [16] of her decision, the Judge states:
“The Respondent has been served with the Appellant’s evidence and has not disputed it or responded in anyway.”
13. With her Rule 24 response the appellant provided a copy of an email dated 13 April 2025 addressed to HMCTS (9AB) to which she attached her notice of appeal and accompanying evidence (19AB to 33AB). Under rule 19(6) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014, the “Tribunal must send a copy of the notice of appeal and the accompanying documents or information provided by the appellant to the respondent”. The appellant had fulfilled her obligation by serving the bundle on the Tribunal.
14. The respondent was made aware that an appeal had been lodged by the appellant by the Acknowledgement of Notice of Appeal dated 8 May 2025 (10AB).
15. On 10 June 2025 the Tribunal sent a “Notice and Directions” to the appellant and respondent (11AB). This stated that “within 5 working days” a direct contact number and email address must be provided. It states: “Documents must be provided by email to i.f.a.taylorhouse@justice.gov.uk”.
16. It further states:
“To the Respondent
Not later than 14 days after the date of this Notice, unless already provided, the respondent must provide a bundle compliant with rule 24(1) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014. This bundle must include the refusal decision and any material which was submitted in support of the application.
To the Appellant
You have indicated that you want the appeal to be decided on the papers without a hearing. The Tribunal may determine the appeal on the basis of the appeal documents together with any further written evidence or submissions you may wish to make. You must send any written evidence and submissions to the Tribunal and the Respondent not later than 28 days after the Respondent’s bundle is provided, or 42 days after the Notice of Appeal, whichever is the later.”
17. It also states to the appellant:
“If you do not have any further evidence or submissions, then no further action from you is required.”
18. The appellant had already provided her appeal and accompanying documentation by this date. The respondent provided a bundle dated 13 June 2025 (76HB to 109HB).
19. On 28 July 2025 the appellant sent an email to the Tribunal at Taylor House and to the respondent at pouclCorrespondence@homeoffice.gov.uk. This email states:
“Please see attached all Bundles from appellant and Respondent for your reference. Please note we sent all required documents with IAFT form, Per Tribunal direction dated 10 June 2025, you are failed to complete your review, please complete the review.”
20. The appellant’s and respondent’s bundles are attached to this email.
21. Mrs. Abdul Karim acknowledged at the hearing that this email address pouclCorrespondence@homeoffice.gov.uk was correct. While she had not seen the email of 28 July 2025 until the morning of the hearing, she stated that she had checked whether there was any record of documents being sent to the respondent at this email on the date prior to the hearing. She had been told that nothing had not been received at this address. She provided no evidence of any checks undertaken, or who she had spoken to. As set out above, she did not request an adjournment to seek further evidence.
22. I find that the appellant complied with the directions sent by the Tribunal, corresponding with the respondent at the email address provided. I find that she sent her appeal bundle twice, first with the notice of appeal on 13 April 2025 and secondly on 28 July 2025, having not heard from the respondent. I find that the appellant has provided evidence that she served her bundle directly on the respondent on 28 July 2025.
23. Mrs. Abdul Karim submitted that the fact that the respondent had not carried out a review indicated that she had not received the bundle. However, as she then conceded, the respondent often provides a review even if no further evidence has been provided by an appellant. It is not the case that she automatically does not provide a review in the absence of an appeal bundle.
24. Even if the Tribunal had not provided a copy of the accompanying documents when it sent the notice of appeal to the respondent, and I find that there is no evidence that it did not, the appellant provided her bundle to the respondent separately, on 28 July 2025. The respondent did not act on the receipt of those documents, but it was confirmed before me that the email address to which they were sent was the correct email address. I find that the Judge addressed the fact that these documents had been served on the respondent but that she had not responded. The appellant had done all that was required of her and provided evidence with her Rule 24 response to show this. I find that the Judge did not make a procedural error in deciding the appeal.
25. It was confirmed by Mrs. Abdul-Karim that the appeal was only brought on procedural error grounds. I have found that there was no procedural error.
Notice of Decision    
26. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal does not involve the making of a material error of law and I do not set it aside. 
27. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal stands.

Kate Hobbs
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
22 April 2026