UI-2026-000984

  • 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-2026-000984
First-tier Tribunal No: EA/02525/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 12th of May 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SILLS

Between

ZUBAIR MOHAMMED
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Chohan
For the Respondent: Ms Keerthy

Heard at Field House on 5 May 2026


DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Respondent has appealed against the FTT Decision dated 22 January 2026. In that decision the FTT Judge allowed the Appellant’s appeal under the Immigration (Citizens' Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. The FTT Judge found that the Appellant and his EU national partner satisfied the definition of ‘durable partner’ under Appendix EU and allowed the appeal on this basis.
2. At the appeal hearing before me, Mr Chohan for the Appellant rightly accepted that the FTT Judge had made a material error of law, and that the Appellant could not satisfy the definition of ‘durable partner’ under Appendix EU. He accepted that the decision of the FTT must be set aside, and that I must remake the decision dismissing the appeal.
3. The reason that the Appellant cannot satisfy the requirements of the definition of ‘durable partner’ Appendix EU are as follows. To satisfy the durable partner requirements under the Rules, the Appellant must have a ‘relevant document’. The relevant document, in short, is evidence that the Appellant’s residence was facilitated as the family member (in this case durable partner) of an EEA national by 31 December 2020. The Appellant made no application under the EEA Regulations and did not make any application under the EUSS until 2023. His residence as a family member of an EEA national in the UK was therefore not facilitated by 31 December 2020. As he does not have a relevant document, he cannot satisfy the requirements of Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules. Mr Chohan accepted that this was in line with Celik v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 921. He rightly conceded that the Appellant could not satisfy the requirements of Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules, and that the decision did not breach any rights the Appellant may have under the Withdrawal Agreement. The Appellant cannot satisfy the requirements of Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules irrespective of the fact that the FTT Judge accepted that the substance of the relationship between the Appellant and Elisabeth Berhane was durable by the time of the application in 2023.
4. For these reasons, I find that the decision of the FTT contains a material error of law and I set it aside. I remake the decision and dismiss the Appellant’s appeal.
Notice of Decision
The decision of the FTT dated 22 January 2026 contains a material error of law and is set aside.
I remake that decision and dismiss the Appellant’s appeal on all grounds.


Judge Sills

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

5 May 2026