UI-2026-000726

  • Case title:  
  • Appellant name:
  • Status of case: Unreported
  • Hearing date:
  • Promulgation date:
  • Publication date:
  • Last updated on:
  • Country:
  • Judges:

The decision



IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-000726
First-tier Tribunal No: HU/00570/2025


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 25th of September 2026


Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHAPMAN

Between

Ms LC
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
v

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Sponsor in person
For the Respondent: Ms S. McKenzie, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 23 September 2026

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, [the appellant] (and/or any member of his family, expert, witness or other person the Tribunal considers should not be identified) is granted anonymity.
No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the appellant, likely to lead members of the public to identify the appellant (and/or other person). Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.


DECISION AND REASONS
1. In a decision promulgated on 28 July 2026, Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Gill found an error of law in the decision and reasons of the First tier Tribunal, on the basis that she was satisfied there were errors in law, in that the judge failed to give adequate reasons and there was procedural unfairness; that these were material errors in law. She set the decision aside and adjourned the hearing for re-making before the Upper Tribunal. The judge’s factual findings were preserved, other than those in relation to “living arrangements” at [37]-[42]. A copy of that decision is appended, which sets out the factual background and the history of the proceedings to date.
2. The Sponsor had made a rule 15(2A) application appending a bundle which included a DNA report confirming his parentage of the Appellant [99.99%].
3. The sole issue in relation to the application of the Immigration Rules, which was raised in the refusal decision of 13 February 2025, was whether the Sponsor is the Appellant’s father, pursuant to FRP 5.1. of Appendix Family Reunion (Sponsors with Protection) of the Rules.
4. At the hearing before me, the Sponsor attended in person and a Shona interpreter joined remotely via videolink.
5. Ms McKenzie had not had sight of all the supporting documentation, copies of which were provided to her. When the hearing commenced, following some discussion, she accepted that the DNA proved paternity and that was dispositive of the appeal.
Notice of Decision
6. I am satisfied that the requirements of FRP of Appendix Family Reunion (Sponsors with Protection) of the Immigration Rules are met. Consequently, the appeal is allowed on human rights grounds.


Rebecca Chapman

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Chapman

24 September 2026