Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-000351
First-tier Tribunal No: HU/53504/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
12th August 2026

Before

DEPUTY CHAMBER PRESIDENT PLIMMER

Between

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Appellant
and

ALEC RENATO
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Mullen, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: Ms Gallacher, Drummond Miller Solicitors

Heard at Melville Street, Edinburgh, on 11 August 2026

DECISION AND REASONS
1. Mr Renato is a citizen of China. The SSHD has appealed against a First-tier Tribunal (‘FTT’) decision dated 16 November 2025 (‘the 2025 FTT decision’), allowing his appeal on human rights grounds.
2. At the beginning of the hearing the parties agreed with the analysis of the appeal below.
i) The sole legal issue in dispute is whether, pursuant to PL5.1(a) of the Immigration Rules, “on the date of application… the applicant [has] been continuously resident in the UK for more than 20 years”. For the purposes of this case, this required Mr Renato to be continuously resident for the 20 years preceding his application dated 6 July 2024 i.e. from 6 July 2004.
ii) The 2025 FTT decision therefore contains an erroneous reference to 276ADE but that does not give rise to any material error of law, because the FTT was obliged to address the same legal issue as summarised above. It follows that no more needs to be said about ground 1.
iii) In a decision dated 20 January 2011 (‘the 2011 FTT decision’) dismissing the Mr Renato’s appeal on asylum and human rights grounds, the FTT disbelieved his claim that he entered the UK some 15 years ago. The 2011 FTT noted that the Mr Renato was arrested on 1 November 2010, when he claimed asylum.
iv) The SSHD carefully considered the supporting evidence provided since the 2011 FTT decision as part of her review for the 2025 FTT hearing. The SSHD considered that evidence of continuous residence was absent in the following periods: January – July 2004, September 2004 – January 2006, September 2012 to September 2017 and December 2017 to December 2024. The factual issues in dispute before the 2025 FTT were therefore limited to these four defined periods during the overarching period of 6 July 2004 to 6 July 2024. The SSHD therefore accepted there were very good reasons to depart from the findings of the 2011 FTT decisions on length of residence.
v) The 2025 FTT found in Mr Renato’s favour in relation to each of those set periods.
vi) The SSHD’s grounds of appeal mounted no challenge to Mr Renato’s continuous residence following his asylum claim in 2010. The grounds of appeal are explicitly limited to the inadequate reasons for finding that he was continuously resident in the UK prior to his asylum claim. This means that the focus of the UT enquiry should be on whether adequate reasons were provided for the only relevant period in dispute: September 2004 to January 2006. The earlier period of January to July 2004 is irrelevant because the 20 year period clock began running in July 2004.
vii) The reasons provided in the 2025 FTT decision should not be viewed in isolation but holistically.
3. Against that backdrop, Mr Mullen accepted that the evidence regarding Mr Renato’s driving licence supported his claim to be continuously in the UK from September 2004 to January 2006, when considered alongside all the other evidence. In these circumstances, Mr Mullen candidly accepted that the four periods of concern identified in the SSHD’s review were no longer disputed, and he was in difficulty. He therefore offered no submissions in support of the SSHD’s appeal. He was right to not pursue the appeal.
4. At [16], the 2025 FTT noted that the appellant holds a driving licence issued on 30 July 2014. The FTT went on to record that the representative stated that he first obtained the licence in 2005. That seems to be a rather clumsy way of recording the submission that the back of the driving licence confirms that it was first issued on 8 December 2005. This is clear from the back of the driving licence itself, which was then re-issued on 30 July 2014. As accepted by Mr Mullen, the written submission on behalf of the SSHD that the appellant’s claim to have thrown away his driving licence before the 2011 FTT must mean that there could be no evidence of a driving licence is difficult to follow. There remains a record of the date the driving licence was first issued, even if the document itself was lost. Indeed, a copy of the driving licence was available to the FTT within the bundle and confirms this. In addition, the counterpart driving licence was also contained within the bundle before the FTT, and is consistent with the driving licence first being issued in 2005. The back of the provisional drivers licence confirms that Mr Renato held a provisional licence from 19 August 2004.
5. In all of the above circumstances, Mr Mullen was correct to not pursue the appeal. The 2025 FTT decision contains no material error of law.
Decision
The decision of the FTT does not contains an error of law and the SSHD’s appeal is dismissed.

DCP Plimmer
Deputy Chamber President Plimmer

11 August 2026