Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-000677
First-tier Tribunal No: HU/59842/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 5 June 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GIBBS

Between

CHIZOBA ADLYN ANEKWE
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr. Waithe, Counsel, Instructed by Okafor and Co. Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms. McKenzie, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 27 April 2026

DECISION AND REASONS

1. This is an appeal brought by the appellant against the decision of a First-tier Tribunal Judge (the Judge) promulgated on 21 November 2025. In this the appellant’s appeal against a decision made by the Secretary of State refusing her application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom (UK) based on her private and family life was dismissed.

Background

2. The appellant is a citizen of Nigeria. She has lived in the UK since 3 February 2023. The appellant has two children who accompanied her to the UK. Both were born in Nigeria and are Nigerian citizens. The eldest was born on 20 November 2017 and the youngest on 11 February 2021.

3. The appellant’s claim is that she will face very significant obstacles to integration in Nigeria because she will be at risk from her husband who has abused her for many years. Further, that the appellant provides support for her mother in both her medical and financial matter.

Grounds of Appeal

4. The Grounds of Appeal are not drafted in accordance with the Upper Tribunal’s guidance in Rai and DAM (Grounds of Appeal – Limited Grant of Permission) [2025] UKUT 00150 (IAC). There are sixteen paragraphs which the First-tier Tribunal Judge who granted permission to appeal (Judge Veloso) distilled into two grounds:

“Ground 1 refers to the appellant’s children having a pending application with the Home Office. Whilst there is no indication that this was referred to or relied on by Counsel at the hearing, emails dated 22 October 2024 confirming respective application were attached to an updated skeleton argument uploaded on the morning of the hearing and the said pending applications mentioned in the description of the document uploaded onto MyHMCTS. It is arguable that the Judge erred in failing to clarify the issue with the parties, which may have affected their assessment of the children being able to return to Nigeria with the appellant as one family unit. Whilst the issue may have been argued by the respondent to amount to a ‘new matter’ or that the applications had in fact been refused, it was simply not considered.

Ground 2 does not dispute the Judge’s account at [7] that the appellant was providing whispered prompts to her mother whilst the latter was giving oral evidence to the extent that the Judge required them to sit apart from each other, nor any of the other adverse credibility findings about the appellant and her mother’s evidence and ensuing finding that the appellant has not established ‘very significant obstacles’ (private life) nor established a family life with her mother.”

Grant of Permission

5. The Judge granted permission to appeal in respect of Ground 1 only:

“Ground 1 refers to the appellant’s children having a pending application with the Home Office. Whilst there is no indication that this was referred to or relied on by Counsel at the hearing, emails dated 22 October 2024 confirming respective application were attached to an updated skeleton argument uploaded on the morning of the hearing and the said pending applications mentioned in the description of the document uploaded onto MyHMCTS. It is arguable that the Judge erred in failing to clarify the issue with the parties, which may have affected their assessment of the children being able to return to Nigeria with the appellant as one family unit. Whilst the issue may have been argued by the respondent to amount to a ‘new matter’ or that the applications had in fact been refused, it was simply not considered.”

6. Following the grant of permission the respondent filed a rule 24 response to the appeal.

7. At the error of law hearing, I heard oral submissions from both parties. I address any submissions of significance in the discussion section below

Discussion

8. Both parties had filed late evidence. I made the decision to admit the evidence; no party was prejudiced by the late submission and neither parry objected.

9. It is not disputed that the fact of the appellant’s children having outstanding applications before the Home Office was not before the Judge. Further, the fact is that the Grounds of Appeal do not specifically challenge on this issue. Ms. McKenzie submitted evidence that the application made by the appellant’s second child has in any event been refused.

10. The Judge had taken into account the best interest of the children which they found were to remain with their mother, and that the children’s father, grandmother and aunt reside in Nigeria. On the evidence before me I am not persuaded that a material error of law has been made

Notice of Decision

11. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal does not involve the making of an error on a point of law. The appellant’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.

L K Gibbs
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
19 May 2026