UI-2025-005722

• Status of case: Unreported
• Hearing date: 13 Feb 2026
• Promulgation date: 24 Feb 2026
• Publication date: 12 Mar 2026
• Last updated on: 12 Mar 2026

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2025-005722
EA/02282/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 24 February 2026

Before
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PICKERING

Between
HASSAN SALEEM
(ANONYMITY ORDER NOT MADE)
Appellant
And

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Not legally represented, the sponsor was in attendance
For the Respondent: Mr Parvar, a Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 13 February 2026

DECISION AND REASONS

1. The appellant appeals, with permission, against the decision of the First‑tier Tribunal to dismiss his appeal against the refusal to issue him with an EEA Family Permit as the family member of the sponsor.
The Appellant’s Case
2. The sponsor is a Spanish national and the appellant’s uncle. On 25 January 2020, the appellant applied for a Family Permit on the basis that he was dependent upon the sponsor.
The Respondent’s Case
3. The respondent refused the application on the basis that there was insufficient evidence of dependency.
The Grounds and the Hearing
4. The grounds of appeal were settled by the appellant himself. He submits that there was procedural irregularity for three reasons: (i) he never received directions requiring him to provide evidence; (ii) he was unaware that his appeal had been determined and the appeal should have not proceeded for that reason; and (iii) had he known the appeal was to be determined, he had evidence he wished to rely upon.
5. The grant of permission relies upon Ghira (R25 – AIP – Fairness) [2025] UKUT 00350 (IAC), which goes to the heart of the grounds, namely, whether the Judge, in deciding to proceed with the appeal notwithstanding the appellant’s indication that the matter was to be determined on the papers, directed themselves appropriately to the guidance in Ghira.
6. At the outset of the hearing, I expressed to Mr Parvar my concern that I could not detect, in form or in substance, that the Judge had directed themselves to the guidance in Ghira. Mr Parvar indicated that he had not had sight of the emails referred to in the grounds, but fairly accepted that the Judge had not directed themselves to the relevant guidance set out in the headnote of Ghira and therefore the decision could not stand.
7. The sponsor was present at the hearing. I explained to him that the decision would be set aside and that the effect of this was that the appeal would need to be reheard by a different Judge.

Notice of Decision
8. The decision of the First‑tier Tribunal involves the making of an error on a point of law and is set aside.
9. No anonymity order is made.
10. The case is remitted to the First‑tier Tribunal sitting at Hatton Cross to be heard afresh by a different Judge. No findings are preserved. I will leave the issuing of directions for the readiness of a hearing to that hearing centre’s administration.

RA Pickering
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
Date: 16 February 2026