Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-001518
First-tier Tribunal No: EU/56779/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 16th of October 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LANDES

Between

ABDULKARIM AHMED GAS
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

ENTRY CLEARANCE OFFICER
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: No appearance
For the Respondent: No appearance

Decided on the papers at Field House on 15 October 2026

DECISION AND REASONS

1. This is the remaking of the appeal following the setting aside of the decision of the First-Tier Tribunal by a panel of the Upper Tribunal (Upper Tribunal Landes & Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Murray) (see annex attached).

2. Following our directions, the sponsor explained that she was still looking after her mother (she produced a medical report) and would be asking the tribunal to proceed without waiting for her return. She said she relied on the evidence already submitted.

3. The respondent has supplied a position statement dated 30 September 2026. That statement explains that having reviewed the evidence, the respondent no longer maintains a challenge to the reliability or authenticity of the marriage documentation produced by the appellant.

4. I quote from the position statement at [8] and [9]:

“8. In light of the findings of the Upper Tribunal and upon further review of the evidence, the Respondent is satisfied that the Appellant has established, on the balance of probabilities, that he is married to the Sponsor as claimed. The Respondent therefore accepts that the Appellant has demonstrated that he is the spouse of a relevant EEA citizen for the purposes of Appendix EU (Family Permit).
9. The Respondent accordingly concedes the appeal and no longer opposes it and invites the Upper Tribunal to remake the decision by allowing the appeal.”

5. I have considered rule 34 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 which enables the Upper Tribunal to make a decision without a hearing. Given that the appellant has asked me to decide the appeal without a hearing and the respondent invites me to allow the appeal, it seems appropriate to decide the appeal without a hearing, despite the fact the panel directed an oral hearing.

6. As the panel explained in the error of law hearing, there is a declaration from the competent authority of Somalia which says it should serve as the corrected and authoritative record of the parties’ marital status as well as the marriage certificate. The respondent now accepts on the balance of probabilities that those documents show that the appellant is married to the sponsor, (a relevant EEA citizen) as he claims. The respondent is not therefore suggesting that the documents produced are not reliable (which might have been one reading of the review).

7. I am therefore satisfied that the appellant is the family member of a relevant EEA citizen and allow his appeal.

Notice of Decision

The appeal is allowed on remaking.

A-R Landes

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

15 October 2026

Annex (error of law decision)

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-001518
First-tier Tribunal No: EU/56779/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

…………………………………

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LANDES
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE L MURRAY

Between

ABDIKARIM AHMED GAS
(ANONYMITY ORDER NOT MADE)
Appellant
And

ENTRY CLEARANCE OFFICER
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: No appearance
For the Respondent: Ms Simbi, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Birmingham Civil Justice Centre on 10 July 2026

DECISION AND REASONS
Introduction
1. The Appellant applied for an EUSS permit on 16 July 2024 and that application was refused by the Respondent on 6 August 2024. The application was made as the “family member of a relevant EEA citizen” (the spouse). The Respondent refused the application as it was said that there were inconsistencies with the evidence. Home Office records showed that the Appellant applied for a UK business visa on 31 October 2018 and on his application form he said he had a spouse and four children. However, in the current application his Somali marriage certificate provided his marital status as ‘single’. Given that he had confirmed on a previous application that he was married, the Respondent was not satisfied that he was free to marry the EEA sponsor on 3 July 2020 and was unable to accept his marriage certificate as reliable evidence of his relationship with the sponsor.
2. The Appellant appealed that decision to the First-tier Tribunal electing to have an appeal without an oral hearing. The appeal was dismissed on 5 February 2026 by a First-tier Tribunal Judge (the FTTJ). In his grounds of appeal to the Upper Tribunal, the Appellant argued that the FTTJ erred in failing to give adequate weight to the official declaration from the Ministry of Foreign affairs of Somalia correcting the clerical error, the divorce certificate and the sponsor’s witness statement. It was further argued that the FTTJ erred in law by requiring an amended or re-issued marriage certificate as the only acceptable evidence which had the effect of imposing an additional evidential requirement not found in the Immigration Rules.
3. Permission to appeal was granted on 26 March 2026 by First-tier Tribunal Judge Kudhail on the grounds that given the FTTJ appeared to have given weight to the official declaration, it was arguable that the marriage certificate, despite the error, was valid.
4. The matter came before us to determine whether the FTTJ had erred in law, and if so whether any such error was material such that the decision should be set aside.
The hearing
5. The sponsor wrote to the Tribunal on the date of the hearing to say that she was in Somaliland and unable to attend the hearing. She did not seek an adjournment and asked for the appeal to be determined in her absence on the basis of the documents and submissions. There was no objection to that course of action by Ms Simbi and we exercised our discretion to hear the appeal in absence.
6. Ms Simbi clarified the Respondent’s position as there was no Rule 24 response. She submitted that it was open to the FTTJ to find that the Appellant’s marriage certificate was not valid as it contained incorrect information. She accepted however, that the FTTJ did not go on to say why the declaration from the Somali authorities did not cure the problem of the error in the marriage certificate.
7. We concluded that there was a material error of law in the decision of the FTTJ such that the decision should be set aside for the reasons set out below. Given that the issue was narrow we agreed that it should be remade in the Upper Tribunal and listed for an oral hearing.
Conclusions – Error of Law
8. The evidence before the FTTJ consisted of a response to the refusal from the Appellant in which he said that the fact that his marital status was incorrectly recorded as ‘single’ instead of divorced was corrected by an official Declaration of Marriage Certificate dated 17 October 2024 from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Somalia. That document states that the Appellant and the sponsor had submitted a request to their office for the authentication and validation of their marriage certificate. The declaration states that a clerical error occurred on the original marriage certificate where the husband’s marital status was mistakenly recorded as ‘single’ instead of ‘divorced’ at the time of the marriage and that the error should be disregarded and “this official declaration shall serve as the corrected and authoritative record of the parties’ marital status.”
9. The FTTJ found that the Appellant did not qualify for a family permit under Appendix EU (Family Permit) to the Immigration Rules because he was not satisfied that the Appellant and sponsor were married as claimed. The FTTJ said that he agreed with the Respondent’s position, as set out in their review, that the Appellant had still failed to provide a valid marriage certificate with the correct details included and that whilst the declaration did confirm that there was an error on the marriage certificate, it was not an amended valid marriage certificate which could have been obtained.
10. Annex A of Appendix EU/FP sets out the definitions of which the following are of relevance:
Family member of a relevant EEA citizen
a person who has satisfied the entry clearance officer, including by the required evidence of family relationship, that they are:
(a) the spouse or civil partner of a relevant EEA citizen, and…
Spouse
(a) the person is, or (as the case may be) for the relevant period was, party to a marriage with a relevant EEA citizen (or, as the case may be, with a qualifying British citizen [link] or with a relevant sponsor) and the marriage is recognised under the law of England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland or of the Islands
Required evidence of family relationship
in the case of:
(a) a spouse:
(i) a relevant document as the spouse of the relevant EEA citizen (or, as the case may be, of the qualifying British citizen), or a valid document of record of a marriage recognised under the law of England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland or of the Islands….
11. It was for the Appellant to prove that the marriage was in accordance with the laws of Somalia where the marriage took place and that both parties were free to marry. The burden of proof may be discharged by the production of a marriage certificate issued by a competent authority of the country in which the marriage took place and the reliance on the statutory presumption of validity consequent to such production. It was also for the Appellant to produce a valid document of record of the marriage.
12. We do not accept the Respondent’s argument that an error on a marriage certificate renders the certificate, or document of record of the marriage, invalid. There is nothing in Appendix EU (Family Permit) or in domestic law which supports a contention that a clerical error on the face of a marriage certificate causes the marriage certificate to be invalid. The declaration produced by the Appellant was from the competent authority of Somalia and explicitly stated that it should serve as the corrected and authoritative record of the parties’ marital status. We find therefore that the FTTJ failed to give adequate reasons as to why in view of this evidence which on its face emanated from the competent authority a corrected marriage certificate was required. We therefore find that the FTTJ erred in law.
13. It is not entirely clear what the Respondent’s contentions were in the review. The review says that because no corrected certificate of marriage has been provided “the R is therefore not satisfied that the Appellant has provided a valid and genuine Marriage certificate.” The Respondent is contending that the marriage certificate is not valid because of an error but may also be suggesting by the reference to “genuine” that the documents produced by the Appellant cannot be relied upon. The FTTJ did not explicitly consider reliability. Either way, the error by the FTTJ was plainly material as the validity and/or the reliability of the documents evidencing the marriage were the only issues in the appeal.
14. We have decided to remake the decision in the Upper Tribunal by reference to Part 3 paragraph 7.2 of the Upper Tribunal Practice Statement of the 18 June 2018 as the issue is a narrow one. We conclude also that the Respondent should make their position clear – are they challenging the reliability of the documentation said to be official Somali documentation or do they accept that the documents are reliable but still contend that there is no valid document of record of the marriage? Of course if it is clear that the Respondent does challenge the reliability of the documents then the Appellant may wish to put in further evidence. Ms Simbi did not have instructions as to the Respondent’s position so we have allowed time for them to be ascertained. Given there is an issue with the documentation in relation to the marriage there should be an oral hearing in the interests of justice so that the Sponsor has the opportunity to give evidence and the Respondent has the opportunity to ask questions.

Notice of Decision
The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of a material error of law and we set it aside.
The decision in the appeal will be remade in the Upper Tribunal.

DIRECTIONS

1. The Entry Clearance Officer must by 24 August 2026 file with the Upper Tribunal and serve on the Appellant a document setting out their position in detail as to why they are not satisfied from the evidence post-decision that the Appellant is the “family member of a relevant EEA citizen”.
2. The Appellant has 28 days from the service of the position statement of the Entry Clearance Officer to file with the Upper Tribunal and serve on the Respondent any further evidence on which he wishes to rely. He may apply to extend time;
3. The appeal will be listed for remaking in the Upper Tribunal in Birmingham not before 21 September 2026 taking into account when the sponsor is likely to return to the UK (see below). The Sponsor has already confirmed that she would not require an interpreter for any hearing.
4. The Appellant or Sponsor are to inform the Upper Tribunal within 28 days from the issue of this decision when the Sponsor is likely to return to the UK.
5. If there is no response as to the Sponsor’s availability within 28 days from the issue of this decision the listing team will refer back to Upper Tribunal Judge Landes for further directions.

L Murray
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge
Immigration and Asylum Chamber 15 July 2026