Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-000891
First-tier Tribunal No: EU/55785/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 7 May 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GREY

Between

AIRIS TAUTERIS
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms Bhachu, Counsel instructed by EMW Law
For the Respondent: Ms Khan, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 28 April 2026

DECISION AND REASONS
Background
1. The appellant is a citizen of Lithuania born November 20051. He appeals against the decision of First-tier Tribunal (“FtT”) Judge Nixon (“the Judge”) of 1 December 2025 dismissing his appeal against the refusal of his application under the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS). The appellant made his application under Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules on 20 March 2024 and the respondent refused his application on 10 July 2024.
2. In assessing the appellant’s eligibility as a child under the age of 21 years of a relevant EEA citizen who has been or is being granted settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme, the decision states that the appellant had failed to provide proof of relationship. In relation to whether the appellant was able to qualify as an EEA citizen on the basis of a continuous qualifying period of five years residence in the UK, the decision states that the appellant had not provided evidence to confirm that he was resident in the UK prior to the specified date (i.e. 2300 GMT on 31 December 2020) and the only dates held by the respondent in relation to the appellant’s residence in the UK were for the period March to June 2024.
3. Although the application appears to have been made on the basis the appellant is child of an EEA citizen, I observe that the appellant is an EEA national in his own right who claims to have been continuously resident in the UK since 2011 when he was aged 5. The appellant’s mother is an EEA national who was granted settled status in the UK on 13 August 2019.
The FTT decision, permission to appeal and the appellant’s further grounds
4. The appeal was decided on the papers on 27 November 2025 and dismissed in a decision dated 1 December 2025. The appellant was unrepresented throughout the FtT proceedings.
5. The reasons for the decision are extremely brief and can be set out in full herein:
8. I start by reminding myself that the burden rests on the appellant to show on the balance of probabilities that she met the criteria of Appendix EU and I find that he has not done this.
9. It was conceded by the respondent that the appellant was the child of an EEA citizen. Accordingly the only issue before me is whether he was shown continuous 5 year residence. Further to the refusal letter, the appellant provided documentation showing residence here in a particular month alone in 2011, 2013, 2014, 2017, 2019 and 2024. That evidence does not show continuous residence over a 5 year period and therefore does not fulfil the necessary criteria. Similarly he has failed to provide evidence to show that he was present in the UK either on the specified date or for 6 months prior. This appeal fails accordingly.
6. The appellant applied for permission to appeal on 12 December 2025, submitting further documents as proof of his residence in the UK since 2011 and stating that he was not sure what documents he should have provided in his appeal. In his application the appellant sets out further information in relation to his education in the UK.
7. Permission to appeal was granted by FtT Judge Head on 25 February 2026. The decision states:
2. The appellant is not entitled to rely upon documents submitted post hearing. However, given the respondent’s concession set out in the Review that the appellant is the child of a relevant EEA citizen, and the appellant’s mother has been granted leave to remain under EUSS and given the previously submitted documents from 2011, 2013, 2014, 2017, 2019 and 2024 showing the appellant’s presence in the UK, it is arguable that the Judge has failed to adequately consider the evidence and has arguably erred in concluding that the appellant does not qualify for pre-settled status.
8. The respondent provided a rule 24 response on 5 March 2026 opposing the appeal, addressing the requirements for a continuous qualifying period that commenced before the specified date and was continuing at the date of application.
9. In advance of the hearing the appellant instructed solicitors on 7 April. The appellant’s representatives applied for an extension of time to rely on the following additional grounds:
(1) It was procedurally unfair for the appeal to be determined as a paper case.
(2) The Judge erred in failing to consider the provisions for settlement as a child under 21 of a relevant EEA citizen.
(3) The Judge overlooked material evidence in the assessment of the continuous qualifying period of residence and failed to provide adequate reasons for the decision.
The error of law hearing
10. At the outset Ms Bhachu made submissions in support of the application to amend the grounds of appeal. I indicated that Ms Bhachu could proceed with her submissions on the amended grounds which I would hear de bene esse to assist me in assessing the merit of the grounds. Mr Khan responded to the Ms Bhachu’s application and submissions.
11. At the end of the submissions, I indicated that I found an error of law on the basis of the original application/grounds such that the FtT decision should be set aside. There is also obvious merit to the additional grounds advanced before me and I grant permission to the appellant to rely on these additional grounds. Although not material to my decision to set aside the FtT decision, the second ground of appeal is relevant to the remaking of the decision. I consider that it is in the interests of fairness to allow the appellant to rely on the amended grounds and that a reasonable explanation has been provided for their late submission. Furthermore, the legal inadequacy and non-specific nature of the appellant's grounds is entirely understandable in view of the fact this young appellant was not legally represented, the complexity of Appendix EU and the deficiencies in the FtT decision, which did not properly identify the issues that fell to be determined or set out the relevant requirements of Appendix EU. In relation to the relevant law, the decision simply states at 5, “The relevant law is set out in Appendix EU”. Given the content of the FtT decision it is difficult to know what more the appellant, as a lay person, could have said in his application for permission to appeal.
Discussion
12. Addressing first the original grounds and ground 3 of the amended grounds, I have no hesitation in finding that the Judge erred in failing to conduct an adequate assessment of the evidence and provide adequate reasons.
13. The decision states “the appellant provided documentation showing residence here in a particular month alone in 2011, 2013, 2014, 2017, 2019 and 2024. That evidence does not show continuous residence over a 5 year period and therefore does not fulfil the necessary criteria.”
14. The Judge failed to undertake any assessment of the nature of the appellant’s evidence or his circumstances. The documentation does not merely indicate the appellant was in the UK for “a particular month alone” but points to a longstanding association with the UK. The documentation indicates the appellant’s educational journey since he arrived in the UK, as well as treatment he has received under the NHS. In relation to his education, the appellant provided documentation relating to the provision of a school place at primary school in 2011 and a secondary school in 2017, payments for school meals, a letter dated June 2022 from his secondary school requesting return of a school laptop (presumably on reaching the end of Year 11), and GCSE and Diploma certificates dated 2024 marking the end of his educational journey to date.
15. The Judge failed to record what period she considered relevant for the assessment of the continuous period of residence. There is no indication the Judge considered what evidence would be reasonably available to the appellant who had just turned 15 years old at the specified date and was just 18 when he made his EUSS application.
16. I accept that the appellant did not provide documentation for every year of the his residence in the UK. However, it is apparent that the Judge failed to consider this in the context of the appellant’s age and circumstances. The appellant was 18 at the date of his application and was still in education at that time. He would not have had any employment documentation or other documentation that may reasonably be expected from an individual who had lived here as an adult, such as utility bills and the like. The Judge provided no reasoning to either explain why the appellant’s statement in his appeal that he had been continuously resident and educated in the UK since 2011 was not accepted (as must have been the case), or to demonstrate that she considered adjourning the matter for an oral hearing so that the appellant could provide oral evidence of his account for the Judge to assess. Furthermore, in addition to a failure to provide any findings on the appellant’s appeal statement, the Judge failed to take into account the acceptance in the refusal decision of documentation relating to 2021.
17. On this basis alone the Judge’s decision is unsafe and must be set aside. There was a failure to conduct an adequate assessment of the evidence and a failure to provide adequate reasons.
18. Furthermore, in light of the fact the appellant was unrepresented and the obvious concerns of the Judge regarding the paucity of the appellant’s evidence to support his appeal statement as to his continuous residence in the UK since 2011, I accept, in line with Ghira (R 25 – AIP – Fairness) [2025] UKUT 00350 (IAC), that the determination of the appeal on the papers amounted to procedural unfairness. It is striking that the decision provides no indication that the Judge directed her mind to whether it was appropriate to determine the appeal on the papers.
19. The decision simply states at [3], “At the appellant’s request I dealt with the case on the papers.” Respectfully, this is insufficient. Where the parties have consented to a hearing on the papers there remains a judicial decision whether to proceed with or without a hearing. There is no indication in the decision that the Judge directed her mind to the requirement for such a decision, taking into account whether the appeal could be disposed of fairly and justly without a hearing in light of the evidence available and the disputed issues. In view of the fact the appellant was unrepresented, the Judge was required to consider whether the appellant had been given an opportunity to clarify his case and evidence and whether it was necessary, in accordance with the overriding objective, to have an oral hearing to provide the appellant with that opportunity.
20. The decision does not identify or set out the relevant provisions of Appendix EU. The Judge does not appear to recognise that there are alternative routes by which the appellant could potentially qualify for status under Appendix EU. These various routes are considered in the refusal decision, although the layout of the decision could have been clearer in helping to identify these matters. In fairness to the Judge, I also record that the respondent’s review was of very limited assistance in identifying the disputed issues in the appeal. In fact, it may have misled the Judge on the relevant disputed issues. Despite the respondent’s concession regarding the relationship between the appellant and his mother, the fact that he is (and was when he applied) under 21 years of age, and the fact Home Office records would have confirmed the appellant’s mother had settled status under the EUSS; the respondent’s review fails to address the eligibility requirements for a family member who is a child of a relevant EEA citizen and under the age of 21 years (EU11, condition 7 - set out below). The focus of the review was entirely in relation to the question of a continuous qualifying period of residence (as is the rule 24 response in these proceedings).
21. Having recorded the respondent’s concession regarding the relationship with his mother, the decision states at [9] “Accordingly the only issue before me is whether he has shown continuous 5 years residence”. This is not correct. Further issues which fell to be determined included whether the appellant could satisfy the requirements of EU11, condition 7 of Appendix EU, as well as whether the appellant qualified for pre-settled status under EU14 of Appendix EU.
Remaking the decision
22. Ms Bhachu invited me to allow the appeal in the appellant’s favour under EU11, condition 7 of Appendix EU without the requirement to return for a further hearing. I sought representations from Ms Khan. She indicated that on the basis of the information now before the Tribunal, she could identify no reason why the appellant did not meet the requirements of EU11, condition 7 to qualify for indefinite leave to remain. Ms Khan was not in a position to formally concede the appeal due to the internal checks which the respondent would wish to undertake before granting leave. She confirmed that the respondent had no further submissions to make in advance of me remaking the decision in the event that I was able to do so.
23. Having carefully reviewed the evidence and the provisions of Appendix EU I am able to remake the decision and allow the appellant’s appeal for the following reasons.
24. The appellant is under the age of 21, his relationship with his mother is accepted, and his mother, Svetlana Tauterine, was granted settled status on 13 August 2019.
25. The relevant provisions of Appendix EU provide as follows:
Persons eligible for indefinite leave to enter or remain as a relevant EEA citizen or their family member, or as a person with a derivative right to reside or with a Zambrano right to reside
EU11
EU11. The applicant meets the eligibility requirements for indefinite leave to enter or remain as a relevant EEA citizen or their family member (or as a person with a derivative right to reside or a person with a Zambrano right to reside) where the Secretary of State is satisfied, including (where applicable) by the required evidence of family relationship, that, at the date of application, one of conditions 1 to 7 set out in the following table is met:
………
Condition 7
(a) The applicant is a family member of a relevant EEA citizen and is a child under the age of 21 years of a relevant EEA citizen, or of their spouse or civil partner, and either:
……….
(b) (i) Where the date of application by the family member is before 1 July 2021, the relevant EEA citizen (or, as the case may be, their spouse or civil partner):
…….
(ii) Where the date of application by the family member is on or after 1 July 2021, the relevant EEA citizen ……. meets the following requirements of the applicable definition of relevant EEA citizen in Annex 1:
(aa) sub-paragraph (a)(ii)(aa); or
(bb) sub-paragraph (b)(ii)(aa) (where the relevant citizen is an Irish citizen); or
(cc) sub-paragraph (c)(i); or
(dd) sub-paragraph (d)(iii)(aa); or
(ee) sub-paragraph (e)(i)(bb)(aaa), (e)(i)(bb)(ccc) or (e)(ii)(bb)(aaa); or
(ff) sub-paragraph (f)(ii)(aa)
Annex 1
relevant EEA citizen (where, in respect of the application under consideration, the date of application by the relevant EEA citizen or their family member is on or after 1 July 2021)
(a) (i) an EEA citizen (in accordance with sub-paragraph (a) of that entry in this table) resident in the UK and Islands for a continuous qualifying period which began before the specified date; and
(ii) where the applicant is their family member, the EEA citizen, having been resident in the UK and Islands as described in sub-paragraph (a)(i) above, has been granted:
(aa) indefinite leave to enter or remain under paragraph EU2 of this Appendix (or under its equivalent in the Islands), which has not lapsed or been cancelled, revoked or invalidated; or
(bb) limited leave to enter or remain under paragraph EU3 of this Appendix (or under its equivalent in the Islands), which has not lapsed or been cancelled, curtailed or invalidated; or
26. I am satisfied on the information before me that the appellant satisfies the provisions of Condition 7 of EU11 because his mother has settled status (and so satisfies sub-paragraph (a)(ii)(aa) of the applicable definition of “relevant EEA citizen” in Annex 1). I further note that in his application the appellant confirmed that he had not been convicted of any criminal offences and had never supported/encouraged war crimes/terrorism/extremism. No suitability issues were raised in the refusal decision and Ms Khan confirmed that she was not aware of any. I am satisfied that the appellant satisfies the suitability requirements of the Rules.
27. For the reasons set out above, the appellant satisfies the requirements of Appendix EU for a grant of indefinite leave to remain and his appeal is allowed.
Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal Judge Nixon involved the making of material errors on a point of law and is set aside. I re-make the decision by allowing the appeal.

Sarah Grey

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

29 April 2026