Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2025-005872
First-tier Tribunal No: EA/00942/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

29th May 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE McWILLIAM

Between

SOBIA NOREEN
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: NONE
For the Respondent: MR M PUGH, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 9 April 2026

DECISION AND REASONS

1. The appellant is a citizen of Pakistan. She appealed against the decision of the respondent on 22 April 2023 to refuse to issue her a family permit under the Appendix EU as a dependent relative of an EEA citizen, her father-in-law, Mr M Inyat (“the sponsor”). Her appeal was allowed by the F-Tt (Judge Karbani). The respondent was granted permission to appeal against the decision of the F-tT
2. The appellant was not represented. The sponsor attended the hearing before me.
The respondent’s decision
3. The respondent refused the application because she was not satisfied that the appellant met the eligibility requirements for an EUSS family permit.
4. The respondent said that the sponsor does not come within the definition of a family member (spouse, civil partner, durable partner, child, grandchild or a great grandchild under 21, dependent child, grandchild or great grandchild over 21; or dependent parent, grandparent or great grandparent of a relevant EEA citizen) under Appendix EU (Family Permit) and therefore she does not meet the eligibility requirements in paragraph FP6(1) for an EUSS family permit.
5. The decision-maker also considered whether the appellant met the eligibility requirements for an EUSS family permit as a "specified EEA family permit case" under paragraph FP8A of Appendix EU (Family Permit). The provision enables extended family members as defined under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (the EEA Regulations) who apply for an EEA family permit before the end of the transition period at 11.00 pm on 31 December 2020, which was subsequently successful (or would have been, but for the closure of that route) to obtain an EUSS family permit in specified circumstances.
The decision of the F-tT
6. The Judge found that the appellant does not meet the definition of a family member and therefore cannot qualify for a family permit under rule FP6. The judge went on to state: -
"9. However, the applicant did make an earlier application (reference PTY/2075374) dated 19 October 2020, which resulted in a refusal date of 25 March 2021 (pages 6-7 RB). This was refused on the basis that the applicant had not demonstrated that she was dependent on her sponsor. Therefore, the respondent's position that there was no evidence that the appellant had not making (sic) previous application before 31 December 2020 is incorrect as per the information in her own bundle."
7. The Judge found that the appellant has demonstrated that she has been dependent on the sponsor since "that date or even prior to that date". The Judge accepted the sponsor's evidence that he has been sending the appellant regular funds for her essential needs taking into account as evidence that his son, the appellant's husband, is a drug addict and has separated from the appellant and that she does not receive any support from him. The Judge accepted that the sponsor sends various amounts to the appellant in remittances. The Judge also accepted that the sponsor and the appellant are emotionally dependent on each other, as the sponsor looks after the appellant's son, who has been residing with him in the UK for the past six years. The Judge accepted that they have demonstrated regular mobile phone contact and the sponsor gave oral evidence of a visit in person two years ago. The Judge found that it is likely that they maintain a close relationship in order to support the upbringing of the appellant's son.
8. The judge said at paragraph 12 as follows:-
"I have applied the definition of a 'specified EEA family permit case'. I find that the appellant has demonstrated that she would have been considered an extended family member under Regulation 8 (see definition (a)(i)(aa)). There was no dispute that the sponsor, as the 'relevant EEA national', was resident in the UK before the specified date. (see definition (a)(i)(bb)). Therefore, I am satisfied that had it not been for the closure of the EEA extended family route as of 31 December 2020, the appellant's application to enter as a family member in October 2020 would have been successful. On that basis, I find that she meets the requirements of FP8A of Appendix EU (Family Permit)."
The law
9. FP6 does not apply to the appellant. She is the daughter-in-law of the sponsor and therefore is not a family member of a relevant EEA citizen for the purposes of the Immigrations Rues, Appendix EU.
10. FP8A of the Immigration Rules Appendix EU (Family Permit) says as follows:
"The applicant will be granted an entry clearance under this Appendix, in the form of an EU Settlement Scheme Family Permit, where:
(a) the entry clearance officer is satisfied that the applicant is a specified EEA family permit case; and
(b) had the applicant made a valid application under this Appendix, it would not have been refused on grounds of suitability under paragraph FP7."
11. In respect of whether the applicant is a specified EEA family permit case, this is defined in Appendix A as follows: -
"A person who:

(a) on the basis of a valid application made under the EEA Regulations before the specified date, would, had the route not closed after 30 June 2021, have been issued an EEA family permit under Regulation 12 of the EEA Regulations: (i)(aa) as an extended family member under Regulation 8;..."

The grounds of appeal
12. The grounds of appeal say that the Judge made a material misdirection on law. It was wrong of the F-tT to conclude that the appellant would have been issued with a family permit had the route not been closed. It ignores that the appellant's application under the 2016 EEA Regulations was refused in 2021.
13. The 2021 decision was not the decision under appeal. The judge incorrectly treated the appeal as an appeal under the EEA Regulations 2016 rather than an appeal against the decision made under Appendix EU (Family Permit) on 22 April 2023.
14. Moreover, success under Regulation 8(2) of the 2016 EEA Regulations is not determinative of the issue, as this would still require an exercise of discretion under Regulation 12; Ihemedu (OFMs - meaning) Nigeria [2011] UKUT 00340. The appellant is not a family member as defined by Appendix EU and she cannot therefore satisfy the requirements of the Immigration Rules.
Error of Law
15. I heard submissions from Mr Pugh and I enabled, as far as I could, the sponsor to engage with the proceedings. I showed him a copy of the relevant immigration rules.
16. The judge allowed the appeal on the basis that had the route not closed the appellant’s application in October 2020 would have been successful. However, this ignores that the application made in October 2020, albeit made under the 2016 EEA Regulations and made before 11.00 pm on 31 December 2020, was refused by the respondent on 25 March 2021 under the 2016 EEA Regulations. The judge acknowledged the refusal but did not appreciate the impact of this. In the light of the refusal, it was not open to the judge to conclude that had the route not been closed the appellant would have been issued with a family permit. While the appellant attempted to appeal against the decision of 25 March 2021, the application to appeal was out of time and not admitted. The decision that is the subject of the appeal is that of 22 April 2023 in response to an application under the Immigration Rules, Appendix EU. The appellant’s appeal could not succeed under FP6 or FP8A of Appendix EU.
17. Moreover, if the appellant was able to succeed under FP8A, she would still need the respondent to exercise discretion under Regulation 12.
Notice of Decision
18. I set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal to allow the appellant's appeal
19. While I appreciate that there are sound reasons why the applicant would want to join the sponsor in the UK, properly applying the Immigration Rules under Appendix EU, the appeal cannot succeed. I dismiss the appeal on the basis that the appellant cannot satisfy the requirements of FP6 or FP8A.
20. I dismiss the appeal.

_________

Joanna McWilliam

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

12 May 2026