Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-005847
First-tier Tribunal No: EU/53557/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

22nd June 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LODATO

Between

JUSTICE BORTEY TAWIAH
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Unrepresented
For the Respondent: Ms Blackburn, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Phoenix House (Bradford) on 12 June 2026

DECISION AND REASONS
1. This decision must be read in conjunction with my error of law decision dated 23 March 2026 in which I allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal because I found it to have involved material errors of law. The underlying appeal was a claim founded on the appellant’s application to join his Italian wife, and sponsor, in the UK under the European legal framework. The respondent refused the claim due to concerns about whether the relationship between the couple was genuine and whether the marriage was one of convenience with the predominant purpose of the appellant to secure for himself an immigration advantage. In refusing the claim, and later resisting his appeal against that decision, the respondent relied on a range of inconsistencies between the answers given by the appellant and the sponsor in their respective interviews.
2. In the error of law decision, I found that the judge had fallen into error on a narrow basis because he had not asked himself the right question as to whether the appellant’s predominant purpose in marrying the sponsor was to secure an immigration advantage. There was no challenge to the judge’s findings that the sponsor was an entirely credible and honest witness who had married the appellant in good faith. The inconsistencies in the interviews were not regarded as sufficiently weighty or concerning to undermine her motives at least. The only question to be determined on remaking the appeal decision was whether the appellant was predominantly motivated by securing an immigration advantage in marrying the sponsor. The respondent made this allegation and bears the burden of proving it on the balance of probabilities.
3. At the remaking hearing, Ms Blackburn fairly and properly recognised that her case had become challenging when seen against the preserved findings of fact in the First-tier Tribunal decision. She indicated that while she was not conceding the appeal, she did not intend to ask any questions of the sponsor who attended the hearing ready to give oral evidence. In her brief submissions, Ms Blackburn noted that the appellant had not adduced any further evidence in support of his motives in marrying the sponsor. However, she recognised that I must be cautious not to reverse the burden of proof such that the appellant was required to prove that his lawful marriage was not one of convenience. Instead, the respondent had to prove on the balance of probabilities that it was such a cynical arrangement.
4. I indicated at the conclusion of the hearing that I was minded to allow the appeal and would provide further reasons in a reserved decision.
5. I am not satisfied that the respondent has established on the balance of probabilities that the appellant’s predominant purpose in marrying his sponsor was to confer an immigration advantage. I have had regard to a pattern of communications between the couple which has been maintained over several years and evidence of numerous visits to see each other involving costly international travel. According to the preserved findings of fact, the sponsor has been honest about her genuine motives in marrying the appellant and the inconsistencies in their respective interviews was not held against her. There is undoubtedly a gap in the evidence in the shape of a narrative account from the appellant who continues to reside in Ghana, but this does not absolve the respondent of having to prove her allegation of his predominant motivation in entering into the marriage. It was telling that Ms Blackburn was unable to point me to much in the way of evidence to support the proposition that the appellant was not primarily motivated by his feelings of love for the sponsor. The respondent has not come close to proving her case. This was the only issue remaining between the parties and the result is that the appeal must be allowed by a conventional application of the requirements of the European Union Settlement Scheme.
Notice of Decision
The appeal is allowed because the appellant meets the requirements of Appendix EU (Family Permit).

P Lodato

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

12 June 2026