Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-001599
First-tier Tribunal No: HU/57339/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 23 June 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SAINI

Between

AKLI SOUAMI
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms S Ferguson, Counsel; Ineyab Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr M Parvar, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 12 June 2026

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant appeals against the decision of First tier-Tribunal Judge Fern, dismissing the Appellant's Human Rights Appeal. The Appellant applied for permission to appeal, which was granted by First tier-Tribunal Judge Barker in the following terms:
“3. Although the decision and reasons run to 11 pages, the Judge’s findings on the relevant issues within the rules are limited to just a few short paragraphs. The majority of the decision and reasons is a rehearsal of the evidence and submissions heard by the Judge. Whilst this in itself may not necessarily be an arguable error of law, it is apparent from the decision and reasons, that not all of the material issues were dealt with by the Judge.
4. As the grounds submitted with the application for permission to appeal assert, the Judge failed to address some aspects of the evidence submitted by the appellant, or failed to provide adequate reasons for the findings.
5. In particular, although the Judge provided adequately reasoned findings for the conclusion that the appellant’s account for the missing pages in his French passport, the decision does not address the other evidence relied on by the appellant, which demonstrates his continuous residence in the UK, rather than his travel beyond the UK.
6. For the same reasons, it is arguable that the Judge failed to carry out an adequate assessment of the proportionality of the respondent’s decision outside the rules, having failed to consider elements of the evidence which may have benefited the appellant in the balancing exercise.”.
2. The Respondent provided a Rule 24 response and the Appellant provided a Rule 25 response. I have taken these pleadings into account in reaching my decision, so far as relevant.
Findings
3. At the close of the hearing, I reserved my decision, which I shall now give. I find that there are errors of law in the decision, such that it should be set aside. My reasons for so finding are as follows.
4. In relation to the first Ground of Appeal, the primary issue concerns whether the judge failed to properly assess whether the evidence established the Appellant had been present in the UK for 20 years. It was argued that this came about due to a failure to take evidence into account or to make clear findings about the evidence going to core matters. As noted in the grant of permission by FTTJ Barker, the Judge’s findings on the relevant issues are indeed limited to just a few short paragraphs within the 11-page decision and the majority of the decision is a rehearsal of the evidence and submissions heard by the Judge. Succinctness is admirable but conversely it focuses attention on the reasons given. Assessing §§29-30, I find that the Judge has failed to address key aspects of the evidence submitted by the Appellant and failed to provide adequate reasons for the absence of findings thereupon. Although the Judge gave reasoned findings for the conclusion that the Appellant’s account for the missing pages in his French passport was implausible, the decision does not address, in any way, the remaining evidence relied upon by the Appellant which could have demonstrated his continuous residence in the UK. For example, the Judge has made no findings as to whether the Appellant’s documentary evidence could demonstrate the Appellant’s presence and establish continuous residence despite the Judge’s speculative finding that the Appellant travelled from the UK at unspecified point(s) in time. This evidence was not insignificant as it covered every year of the Appellant’s claimed continuous residence according to the Grounds of Appeal. In support of this point, Ms Ferguson took me to the Appellant’s covering letter for his application for status which listed his evidence from 2001 onwards (and which coincided with the ‘validity’ of the now-expired fake French passport) and included inter alia the following independent documentation:
(Date unspecified)
• Accommodation Supporting letter with passport Youcef Boudjemaa
• Driving Licence in alias name Mohamed Haddad
• Cambian Churchill Cook ID card
• BT Payment Card

2002
• P60 - Geronimo Inns Limited
• P45 - Geronimo Inns Limited

2003
• P60 Nestbridge Limited
• NatWest application

2004
• Geronimo Inns Limited Payslip
• Tax document - Geronimo Inns
• Cellar Gascon Payslip
• P60 White Bar Ltd

2005
• National Insurance letter
• Natwest Letter
• Sundial Pubs Ltd payslip
• White Bar Ltd payslip x3
• Tax Calculation letter
• Inland Revenue letter dated 13.07.2005
• P60 White Bar Ltd
• P60 Nestbridge Ltd

2006
• NHS Medical Card issued 06/11/2006
• P45 and Letters Mitchells and Butlers
• Bloys Business Caterers Ltd payslips x2
• Greene King payslips x 2
• Mitchells and Butlers payslip x2
• P60 Greene King Retail Services
• Sundial Pubs Ltd payslips x 3
• P60 Mitchells and Butlers
• P45 Mitchells and Butlers
• P45 Poplar Jobcentre Plus
• P60 Bloys Business Caterers Ltd
• NatWest Current Plus Account statement
• NatWest First Reserve Account statement

2007
• BT bill dated 16/12/2007
• Bloys Business Caterers Ltd payslip x 3
• NatWest Current Plus Account statement
• NatWest First Reserve Account statement

2008
• Orange mobile letter dated 06/08/2008
• NatWest Current Plus Account statement
• NatWest Savings Direct Account statement
• Lavery Leisure Ltd payslip

2009
• The Duke of York Pub Ltd payslips x 5
• P60 The Duke of York Pub Ltd
• ACAS letter dated 06/02/2009
• NatWest Current Plus Account Statement
• NatWest Savings Direct Account Statement

2010
• HMRC Tax Calculation dated 11/11/2010
• The Duke of York Pub Ltd Payslips x 3

2011
• Oyster card dated 16/11/2011
• DBS Enhanced Disclosure dated 14/07/2011
• London Churchill payslips x 2
• UCL Hospital letter dated 07/01/2011
• NHS letter dated 09/03/2011
• Whitechapel Dental Centre letter dated 02/03/2011
5. Although Ms Ferguson did not point to any other evidence in the Appellant’s Bundle that the Judge failed to consider, I find that it was not open to the Judge to simply ignore this evidence before rejecting the Appellant’s claim of continuous residence, particularly as it had been submitted with his application and was not undermined in any way in the Refusal Letter. On balance, this evidence alone, could have established that the Appellant was resident in the UK for the disputed period in question (seemingly during the validity of his fake French passport). This also highlights another omission in the decision, namely that the Judge failed to find whether or not the Appellant worked in the fake French identity which he claimed was the motivation for obtaining the fake passport in the first place (as opposed to wanting to undertake travel and notwithstanding whether or not, he also travelled on that identity). I find that, had the Judge looked at this evidence, it may have pointed to an alternate conclusion that the Appellant had been continuously resident in the UK notwithstanding that the Judge believed he had left the UK (although I note that the Judge did not identify when she believes he actually left and returned to the UK which is a matter of concern giveb that this point does not appear to have been raised as a basis for refusal, although I make plain it has not affected my decision as this was not taken as a ground of appeal and is therefore not a live issue before me). Thus, although, the mere fact that a judge does not mention a specific piece of evidence does not mean that she overlooked it, I cannot see any consideration of the boave documentation anywhere in the Judge’s findings from §§29 to 33.
6. Notwithstanding the travel from the UK that the Judge speculates must have occurred by dint of certain pages being removed from his passport in order to conceal evidence of travel and absence, and notwithstanding that the Appellant claimed he only used the passport to obtain a National Insurance number in 2005 to obtain work in the UK in an alias, I accept the argument that in rejecting the Appellant’s appeal, the Judge has also completely failed to consider whether or not that fake French passport would have been detected at the border (as opposed to by laypersons when seeking a job) and also failed to consider that the fake passport expired in 2011 and therefore the travel the Judge speculates must have taken place could only have occurred before that point (even if the fake passport went undetected at the border). None of this finds any mention in the judge’s decision and does point to perversity in the decision as set out in Ground 1 (although this is a different point in law and should have been pleaded separately, I consider it here given that it falls under the umbrella of Ground 1).
7. Thus, Ground 1 is made out and I find that Appendix Private Life PL.5.1. was not lawfully considered for the above reasons.
8. Turning to Ground 2, the Appellant challenges the finding at §44 that he is financially insecure. This finding was no doubt due to the Judge’s failure to assess the documentary evidence and is intrinsically linked to the Ground 1. Although this ground alone could not necessarily represent a material error, as it has been raised further to and in support of the first ground, I find that this ground also establishes a material error of law, as the Appellant’s avoidance of benefits and burdening the taxpayer is a relevant factor in assessing the public interest set out at s.117B of the 2002 Act albeit not a determinative one. Thus, even though a material error has already been established, this further error compounds the materiality of the error already identified.
1. In light of the above findings, I find that the decision contains material errors of law such it should be set aside.
Notice of Decision
2. The appeal to the Upper Tribunal is allowed.
3. The appeal is to be remitted to be heard by any Judge of the First-tier Tribunal other than Judge Fern.

P. Saini

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

15 June 2026