Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-005868
First-tier Tribunal No: HU/57884/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 6th of May 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE R FRANTZIS

Between

BINIAM FANUS TESFAMICHAEL
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr A Bradley (Solicitor, AJ Bradley & Co)
For the Respondent: Mr N Wain (Counsel)

Heard at Phoenix House (Bradford) on 20 April 2026

DECISION AND REASONS
Introduction
1. The Secretary of State appeals with permission against the decision, dated 3rd December 2025, of the First-tier Tribunal (“FtT”) to allow the Appellant’s appeal on human rights grounds (“the Decision”).
2. To avoid confusion, and for the remainder of this decision, I will refer to the appellant in these appellate proceedings, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, as the Respondent and the respondent, Biniam Tesfamichael, as the Appellant, as they were before the FtT.

Background
3. The broad factual background to the appeal is not in dispute between the Parties. The Appellant was born on 1st February 2011. He is a citizen of Eritrea currently in Uganda. He applied on 26th April 2024, when he was 13, for leave to enter the United Kingdom as the brother of Efrem Fanus, a British citizen, it being said that their father has disappeared and their mother is unable to look after him due to mental illness.
4. The Decision provides as follows in respect of the legal framework [5],:
“The relevant rule is set out in [297(f)] of the Immigration Rules. I have applied and considered all the relevant case law and s117A-D of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, and s55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. I will not summarise the case law here regarding the rules, the most relevant being Mundeba (s55 and para 297(1)(f)) [2013] UKUT 00088 (IAC), as this is not an academic treatise, but I will apply the principles derived from them and regarding Article 8 in the findings section of this decision. The question of sole responsibility in [297(e)] is irrelevant as neither parent is here.”
Appeal to the Upper Tribunal
5. The Respondent contends that the FtT has erred in law. In a decision dated 27th January 2026, this Tribunal granted permission to appeal. That permission was not limited.
6. Before me, Mr Wain crystallised his challenge to the Decision as follows:
i. The FtT misdirected itself in law by failing to properly apply Mundeba;
ii. Furthermore, the FtT has failed to give adequate reasons, in light of Mundeba, for finding that the Appellant should succeed on the facts of the appeal.
7. Mr Bradley relied upon the Rule 24 Response provided on 27th March 2026 and maintained that the FtT had come to clearly reasoned findings, open on the facts and law.
Discussion
8. I remind myself of the following principles taken from Volpi & Anor v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464:
i. an appeal court should not interfere with the trial judge’s conclusions on primary facts unless it is satisfied that he was plainly wrong.
ii. as an appellate court, the Upper Tribunal it is bound, unless there is compelling reason to the contrary, to assume that the FtT has taken the whole of the evidence into his consideration. The mere fact that the FtT does not mention a specific piece of evidence does not mean that he overlooked it.
iii. Reasons will always be capable of having been better expressed. An appellate court should not subject a judgment to narrow textual analysis. Nor should it be picked over or construed as though it was a piece of legislation or a contract.
9. It is not in contention that the relevant Immigration Rule is found at paragraph 296(i)(f):
(f) one parent of a relative is present and settled in the United Kingdom or being admitted on the same occasion for settlement and there are serious and compelling family or other considerations which make exclusion of the child undesirable and suitable arrangements have been made of the child’s care.
10. This Tribunal in Mundeba gave the following guidance:
“The ‘serious and compelling family or other considerations’ need to be considered only in the context of whether exclusion of the child is undesirable.” [29]
“In our view, ‘serious’ means that there needs to be more than the parties simply desiring a state of affairs to obtain. ‘Compelling’ in the context of paragraph 297(i)(f) indicates that considerations that are persuasive and powerful. ‘Serious’ read with ‘compelling’ together indicate that the family or other considerations render the exclusion of the child from the United Kingdom undesirable. The analysis is one of degree and kind.  Such an interpretation sets a high threshold that excludes cases where, without more, it is simply the wish of parties to be together however natural that ambition that may be.” [34]

“Family considerations require an evaluation of the child’s welfare including emotional needs. ‘Other considerations’ come into play where there are other aspects of a child’s life that are serious and compelling - for example where an applicant is living in an unacceptable social and economic environment. The focus needs to be on the circumstances of the child in the light of his or her age, social background and developmental history and will involve inquiry as to whether:-
(i)    there is evidence of neglect or abuse;
(ii    there are unmet needs that should be catered for;
(iii) there are stable arrangements for the child’s physical care.

The assessment involves consideration as to whether the combination of circumstances sufficiently serious and compelling to require admission.” [37]
11. The Grounds of Appeal assert that:
“The FTTJ finds serious and compelling family circumstances exist [22], however, it is respectfully asserted, that the reasons given fail to properly apply Mundeba [34]. The appellant in the instant case, is housed and fed, with all needs being met, there is no evidence of abuse or neglect, and he is protected by the asylum system in Uganda, it is therefore unclear how he is said to meet the high threshold set out in Mundeba at the date of application/hearing.”
12. To assess that complaint it is necessary to cite the following evidence, recorded by the FtT:
(i) “He left Eritrea on 5 January 2024 and spent 7 weeks in Ethiopia and 4 weeks in Kenya. He has a temporary visa in Uganda which expires on 2 July 2024 and is an asylum certificate (which I have seen). His father had disappeared, and his mother had mental health problems from stress. No one prepared food. He could not wash himself or clean his clothes.” [6]

(ii) “Their mother was unstable and sometimes hit Biniam. Biniam ran away at the beginning of 2024 and rang to say he was in Ethiopia. Smugglers took him to Uganda using the money Efrem provided. A neighbour, Mebrahtom Gebreslase, took him in. The rent is £70 per month which is paid out of the £100 or £200 per month Efrem sends. Mebrahtom intends to go to Canada. Efrem and Biniam communicate via phone and WhatsApp. Efrem makes decisions for Biniam. Biniam will be forced into national service if he is returned to Eritrea. There is corruption and delay in the Ugandan asylum system” [7]

(iii) “Biniam does not attend school and does not have proper access to healthcare.” [11]
13. Having recorded that evidence, the FtT makes the following findings of fact:
(i) “I accept that their father has disappeared as I have no reason to doubt it. I accept that their mother is an outpatient of St Mary Hospital as I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the medical card or letters from Dr Genet, and that she has memory loss, mood swings, and cognitive disorder. Neither are able to provide for Biniam in Uganda, and Biniam cannot be expected to return to Eritrea given his age and MO” [19]

(ii) “I accept that Biniam does not attend school. I do not accept he would be unable to access medical treatment as there is no evidence he has tried to and been rebuffed. I accept he misses Efrem and cries when he talks about family as I have no reason to doubt that as a 14-year-old boy in a strange country and not living with his family he would do so. [20]

(iii) I accept that there are therefore serious and compelling family considerations that make Biniam’s exclusion undesirable as he cannot be expected to return to Eritrea, has no parent or relative capable of looking after him in Uganda, is separated from his adult brother who provides the finances for his living expenses and can provide a secure home and life here, and he should not be expected to live on the margins of society without permanent status in a country where he does not speak the languages with a person who is seeking to leave for Canada. [22]

(iv) it is in his best interest to join the closest relative who can care for him where he can he (sic) educated, housed and fed [24].
14. Standing back and reading the Decision as a whole, I form the view that the FtT has properly considered and applied Mundeba. That is because:
(i) the FtT records evidence of the Appellant’s experience of past neglect and harm at the hands of his parents [6, 7]. I am told that evidence was not challenged.

(ii) the FtT records the evidence that the Appellant ran away from that environment in 2024 [7]. I am told that evidence was not challenged.

(iii) the evidence set out at sub-points (i) and (ii) above is relevant to the Appellant’s social background and developmental history and his emotional needs [see paragraph [37] Mundeba].

(iii) the FtT finds that neither of the Appellant’s parents are able to care for him in Uganda [19,22].

(iv) the FtT finds that the Appellant does not attend school [20]. Sub-points (iii) and (iv) are findings that the Appellant has unmet needs.

(v) the FtT finds that the Appellant should not be expected to live on the margins of society without stability or permanent status in a country where he does not speak the languages, with a person who is seeking to leave for Canada [22].
15. The evidence recorded and each of the findings set out above shows, in my view, a clear application of the principles set down by this Tribunal in Mundeba at [37].
16. I do not agree with Mr Wain’s argument that the FtT has failed to provide adequate reasons for its findings. The Decision requires to be read as a whole. For the reasons that I set out above, I find that the reasoning of the FtT is adequate and clear.
17. Mr Wain did not press the argument made in the Grounds of Appeal at paragraph (c). In my view he was correct not to do so. Each appeal will turn on its own facts and for the reasons set out above, the FtT was entitled to come to the conclusion that it did on the evidence.
Conclusion
18. For the reasons that I set out above the Grounds of Appeal do not demonstrate that the Decision of the FtT involved the making of a material error of law.

Notice of Decision
The Decision of the FtT did not involve the making of a material error of law and shall stand.

Roxanne Frantzis

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

30th April 2026