Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-005841
First-tier Tribunal No: HU/51850/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 23rd April 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SEELHOFF

Between

MR TAMMY TENESON NORMAN
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME OFFICE
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Ogunbiyi, Counsel Direct Access
For the Respondent: Ms Mackensie, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 31 March 2026

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant applied for indefinite leave to remain on the basis of long residence on the 26th September 2023. The Application was refused on the 6th of February 2024 with the Respondent setting out why he had not completed 10 years lawful residence.
Decision of the First-tier
2. In a decision dated the 16th October 2025 Judge Mills dismissed the appeal holding that the Appellant had not been continuously resident in the UK for 10 years. In terms of material facts;
i. It was accepted that the Appellant entered the UK lawfully on the 27th January 2014.
ii. The Appellant left the UK one day after the expiry of his leave to remain on the 10th February 2020 after a flight was cancelled but then stayed out for nearly 11 months. Judge Mills held that the Appellant had not proved that this absence was due to covid restrictions and that as a consequence it broke his continuous lawful residence.
iii. The Respondent emailed the Appellant on the 24th January 2023 curtailing his leave to remain. Judge Mills rejected an explanation that service was not invalidated by this going into the Appellant’s junk mail box and that it therefore meant he would have fallen short of ten years lawful residence in any event as his lawful residence ended on the 25th March 2023.
iv. Judge Mills also rejected claims that there were very significant obstacles to integration.
Application for Permission to Appeal
3. The Appellant applied for permission to appeal which was rejected by the First-tier but was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Perkins on the 27th January 2026.
The Hearing
4. Mr Ogunbiyi sought to rely on a skeleton argument which he had emailed before the hearing but had not uploaded it to CE File. Because it essentially repeated the grounds I admitted the document despite the error in filing it.
5. Mr Ogunbiyi expanded on the grounds before me and Ms Mackenzie responded. At the end of the hearing I indicated that I was not satisfied that there was an error of law but that my decision was reserved and that my reasons would follow in writing.
Reasons
6. Ground 1 argues that the Judge was wrong to find that the Appellant’s absence from the UK between February 2020 and January 2021 was not due to Covid restrictions.
7. The grounds do not fairly characterise the Judge’s reasoning. The Judge held that;
“He has not provided evidence showing that travel from Nigeria to the UK was impossible during this period, and I find that the extended delay in him returning to the UK was most likely a combination of the impact of the pandemic, but also a lack of urgency on his part.” [28]
8. The Judge focused on the lack of evidence of what the restrictions were at the relevant time. Mr Ogunbiyi accepted that there was no documentary evidence before the First-tier or before me which set out what the actual travel restrictions were between the UK and Nigeria for the relevant period.
9. Whilst it is common knowledge that there were travel restrictions during Covid, it was for the Appellant to properly evidence how they related to him. It would have been reasonable for evidence to have been served as to the exact restrictions in place as to travel between Nigeria and the UK at that time.
10. Accordingly I do not consider that the Judge made an error of law in this respect. Even if this were not the case, the issue would be academic in light of the issues around the curtailment of leave which I address below.
11. Ground 2 argues that the Judge was wrong to hold that the Appellant’s leave was curtailed effectively on the 24th January 2023 as the email went into the Appellant’s junk mail account.
12. The grounds of appeal do not accurately reflect the decision in Alam v SSHD 2020 EWCA Civ 1527. In paragraph 19 of Alam it is stated that;
“Article 8ZB (a) deems the use of the methods of sending in Article 8ZA to be the valid giving of notice and (b) deems that notice to have given on the specified day, but leaves the person affected (or for that matter the SSHD if the need arises) free to prove (a) that he was not in fact given notice and/or (b) that it was not given on that day. ”
13. One of the prescribed methods of service is emailing a decision to a subject’s nominated email address. Paragraph 20 of Alam emphasises that an individual cannot say he was not served simply because he has not seen the decision noting;
“The difficulty with this approach is that those who do not trouble to open their mail, or collect recorded delivery items from the Post Office, or look at their emails, can effectively insulate themselves from being given notice.”
14. The Appellant does not dispute that notice of the decision was sent to him at his nominated email address as claimed. On this face of it this is valid service and the decision reached by the Judge was entirely correct and there was no error of law.
15. However even if the Appellant were treated as not having received the notice until he found the email, he explained in his statement that he found the decision in April 2023 (paragraph 19 witness statement). This was 8 months short of ten years residence, and the Appellant did not submit his application for indefinite leave to remain until 5 months later.
16. In short even if Judge Mills has made the errors alleged in ground 1 and 2, which he did not, the Appellant would still not qualify for indefinite leave to remain on the basis of long residence and the alleged errors could not have been material to the outcome of the appeal.
17. Ground 3 alleges that the Judge alleges that;
“the judge was wrong when he found at paragraph 38 that the Appellant gave inadequate evidence about any obstacles to reintegration into Nigeria when he gave evidence of the lack of financial support from his elderly parents, one of whom is a clergy man and who have exhausted their savings paying for his education in the UK and for his sickle cell treatment when he was in Nigeria. The Appellant further gave evidence that his illness is so bad that he could not work in Nigeria to support himself and pay for his medical needs.”
18. Mr Ogunbiyi did not represent the Appellant before the First-tier. There is nothing before me about the oral evidence given before Judge Mills beyond what is recorded in the decision.
19. The written submissions to the First-tier explained that the Appellant’s parents were supporting him;
“A is supported by his mother in the UK, who provides him with free accommodation and basic needs. A also does not receive any benefits from the government. Therefore, he is financially independent from the government and not a burden on taxpayers.”
20. The Appellant did not describe any financial difficulties in his statement and the judge records that the evidence before him showed that;
“There is no real evidence before me to suggest that he would be unable to receive suitable care in his own country, with the financial assistance of his family if necessary, who do not appear to be in difficulty in supporting him to study in the UK, and so would no doubt continue to support him on return if required.”
21. In his statement the Appellant makes no reference to difficulties in managing his Sickle Cell anaemia in Nigeria.
22. I am not satisfied that the issues raised in ground 3 were raised before the First-tier in the manner alleged and accordingly Judge Mills cannot have made any legal error in not considering those factors.
23. Ground 4 alleges that the Judge was wrong to find that the Appellant’s Sickle Cell disease was well managed in Nigeria.
24. There is no reference in the Appellant’s statement to problems managing his condition in Nigeria. The condition was only mentioned in the skeleton argument before the First-tier as having been a factor relevant to why his leave had been curtailed and is not included as a factor relevant to obstacles to integration (Paragraphs 19-28 Skeleton). Mr Ogunbiyi accepted that there was no evidence in the bundle that went to the question of provision of care for Sickle Cell Anaemia in Nigeria.
25. As noted in respect of ground 3, there is no evidence before me to suggest that this issue was raised in oral evidence at the hearing.
26. Judge Mills cannot have made an error in law by failing to consider an argument that was not raised at the hearing before the First-tier and it follows that ground 4 is not made out.

Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal does not contain an error of law and the Appeal to the Upper Tribunal is dismissed.

A. Seelhoff

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

20th April 2026