Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-001740
First-tier Tribunal No: EU/52805/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 3rd of September 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE NAIK KC

Between

Javairia saleem
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: No representative
For the Respondent: Ms Everett, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 18 June 2026

DECISION AND REASONS
Introduction
1. This is an appeal by the appellant against the determination of the First-tier Tribunal Judge Farrelly (the Judge) who dismissed her appeal in a determination dated 24 December 2025 made as requested on the papers, against the decision of the respondent refusing her application under the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) Family Permit on 5 February 2025 in response to her application made on 15 January 2025.
2. The Judge dismissed the appellant’s appeal finding that
Issues
3. The only issue in this appeal is whether by 31st December 2020 (the ‘specified date’ under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020) the appellant and the sponsor could be legally considered to be in a durable relationship akin to marriage and thus the Judge materially erred in law in determining that they were not.
Grounds of appeal
4. The grounds of appeal submitted that the Judge had erred in law in relation to her findings on durable relationship.
5. The sole issue before the First-tier Tribunal was whether the Appellant and her Sponsor were in a durable relationship prior to the specified date of 31 December 2020, as required by Appendix EU. The Judge correctly identified this issue at paragraph 9 of the determination.
6. The Judge erroneously treated the short duration of the relationship as determinative effectively imposing a temporal threshold not required by Appendix EU. The guidance explicitly states that the two-year cohabitation period is a rule of thumb and not a rigid requirement, allowing for other significant evidence to establish durability
7. The Judge failed to conduct a holistic assessment of the evidence presented by the appellant. The appellant and her sponsor sustained communication, serious commitment, intention to marry, and valid reasons for limited physical meetings due to religious norms, age, financial constraints, and the impact of COVID-19. Despite accepting the facts as presented, the Judge did not provide a meaningful analysis of whether this cumulative evidence demonstrated a durable relationship within the meaning of Appendix EU.
8. The Judge's approach was legally flawed as it imposed a minimum duration requirement for the relationship, which is not prescribed by Appendix EU. This misapplication of the legal test constitutes a material error of law. The guidance explicitly allows for other significant evidence to establish durability, even in the absence of cohabitation or a long relationship duration.
9. The Judge's reasoning contains internal inconsistencies. While the Judge accepted the genuineness of the relationship and the justification for non-cohabitation, he rejected durability solely based on the relationship's short duration. This conclusion is inadequately reasoned and fails to explain why the accepted evidence was insufficient to establish durability in law.
Permission to Appeal
10. Permission to appeal was granted by Judge Cole on 7 April 2026 on all grounds. He stated:
(i) The grounds argue that the Judge erred in his consideration of the sole issue which was whether the appellant and his partner were in a durable relationship prior to the specified date of 31 December 2020.
(ii) The appellant’s relationship with her partner formally began in October 2020 and so the relationship had only been in existence for around two months at the specified date. However, the Judge accepted the facts as stated by the appellant (see paragraph 8)
(iii) Furthermore, the Judge accepted that the appellant and her partner are now married and that their relationship is genuine (see paragraph 15).
(iv) It is arguable that the Judge erred in law by focusing on the two years cohabitation in the definition of durable partner in Appendix EU (Family Permit) and failing to apply the correct alternative test of whether “there is other significant evidence of the durable relationship.”
(v) It is arguable that the Judge erred in failing to conduct a holistic assessment of all the evidence presented to decide whether “there is other significant evidence of the durable relationship.”
11. The respondent filed a response to the grounds of appeal dated 28 April 2026 and the appellant acting in person filed a rule 25 response to that by email.
Background
12. The background is set out in the respondent’s decision. On 15 January 2025 the appellant who is a national of Pakistan (DOB 13 October 2004) made an application for an EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) Family Permit under Appendix EU (Family Permit) to the Immigration Rules on the basis that she was a 'family member of a relevant EEA citizen'.
13. In the decision under appeal the respondent set out as follows:

“I have considered whether you meet the validity, eligibility and suitability requirements for an EUSS Family Permit, which are set out in Appendix EU (Family Permit) to the Immigration Rules (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules/appendix-eu-familypermit).

You can also find out more about the requirements in the guidance on GOV.UK (https://www.gov.uk/family-permit/eu-settlement-scheme-family-permit).

You have stated that the family relationship of the EEA citizen sponsor to yourself is ‘spouse/civil partner’. As evidence of this relationship, you have provided a Pakistan marriage certificate stating that you and your EEA citizen sponsor married on 12 January 2025, photographs, WhatsApp messages, various birthday cards, a testimonial from your EEA citizen sponsor’s brother, flight bookings for your EEA citizen sponsor and stamps in your EEA citizen sponsor’s passport to show that he has travelled to Pakistan.

In the annex of Appendix EU (Family Permit) to the Immigration Rules the following definition for a spouse/civil partner:
the spouse or civil partner of a relevant EEA citizen, and:
"(i)(aa) the marriage was contracted or the civil partnership was formed before the specified date; or
(bb) the applicant was the durable partner of the relevant EEA citizen before the specified date (the definition of ‘durable partner’ in this table being met before that date rather than at the date of application) and the partnership remained durable at the specified date; and
(ii) the marriage or civil partnership continues to exist at the date of application;"

As your marriage was not contracted/civil partnership was not formed before the ‘specified date’ (11PM GMT, 31 December 2020), it must be demonstrated that you were the ‘durable partner’ of the relevant EEA citizen before the specified date.

In the annex of Appendix EU (Family Permit) to the Immigration Rules ‘durable partner’ is defined as:
"a) the person is, or (as the case may be) was, in a durable relationship with the relevant EEA citizen (or, as the case may be, with the qualifying British citizen), with the couple having lived together in a relationship akin to a marriage or civil partnership for at least two years (unless there is other significant evidence of the durable relationship); and
b) where the applicant was resident in the UK and Islands as the durable partner of a relevant EEA citizen before the specified date, the person held a relevant document as

You have stated on your application form that you have been in a relationship with your partner since October 2020. The definition of a durable partner, as stated above, is “the person is, or (as the case may be) was, in a durable relationship with the relevant EEA citizen (or, as the case may be, with the qualifying British citizen), with the couple having lived together in a relationship akin to a marriage or civil partnership for at least two years (unless there is other significant evidence of the durable relationship)”. As you have only been in a relationship with your sponsor since October 2020, and as you have not provided any other significant evidence of the durable relationship, I am not satisfied that you are able to provide the evidence to demonstrate that you and your sponsor have been in a relationship akin to marriage for at least two years prior to the ’specified date’ – 11PM 31 December 2020. Therefore, you do not meet the requirements as set out above.

Photographs, WhatsApp messages, birthdays cards and the testimonial from your EEA citizen sponsor’s brother are insufficient to demonstrate that you and your EEA citizen sponsor were in a relationship akin to marriage prior to the ‘specified date’ – 11pm 31 December 2020 and do not serve as other significant evidence for the requirement to have been in a relationship for two years prior to the ‘specified date’ – 11pm 31 December 2020 to be waivered.

You have also provided flight bookings for your EEA citizen sponsor and stamps in his passport to show that he travelled to Pakistan. However, flight bookings and stamps in the passport do not serve as other significant evidence for the requirement to have been in a relationship for two years prior to the ‘specified date’ – 11pm 31 December 2020 to be waivered.

Given the above, I am not satisfied that you have provided adequate evidence that you were the durable partner of your sponsor prior to the specified date and then contracted a marriage/formed a civil partnership after the ‘specified date’.

Therefore, I am not satisfied that you are a 'family member of a relevant EEA Citizen' as so defined in Appendix EU (Family Permit) to the Immigration Rules.

Your application is therefore refused”.
Submissions
14. There was no appearance in person for the appellant and hence I considered her grounds of appeal along with the rule 25 reply.
15. Ms Everett for the respondent submitted that any relationship that began only two months before the specified date cannot be considered “durable” in the relevant sense as required by the definition within Appendix EU. A relationship of only two months cannot, on any view, be considered to be beyond that of a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship to be something akin to marriage, even in the absence of a requirement of cohabitation.
16. The Judge acknowledged at paragraphs 9-11 that two years’ cohabitation is not a requirement, and that the appeal may succeed should the appellant and sponsor show their relationship was durable prior to the specified date. The Judge specifically states at paragraph 11, “two years is not a rigid notion and the definition refers to significant evidence of the relationship”. At paragraph 12 the Judge notes “the respondent’s guidance accepts two years together is a rule of thumb and not a requirement.” The Judge goes on to record what would be adequate evidence of a durable relationship, evidence showing ongoing commitment. The Judge accepts religious beliefs relating to chastity are a good reason for not cohabiting and instead seeking to show the relationship was otherwise durable.
17. At paragraph 15 the Judge correctly concludes that the couple were only together for a very limited time, for two months, before the specified date. For that reason, the Judge correctly concludes the relationship was not durable at the specified date. This is not a case of failing to consider the evidence- the Judge referred to the evidence at paragraph 15, and, as above, had acknowledged that significant evidence was capable of succeeding within the rules. It is simply that the appellant’s claim is that their relationship was only in existence for a very short period of time, which cannot be considered to meet the threshold of “durability”.
18. Hence the Judge directed themselves appropriately and the appeal should be dismissed.
Analysis
19. In this appeal the evidence is not in dispute and the Judge accepted them [8]. The appellant is now a 21 year old Pakistani national who applied to come to the UK to join her husband who is a French and British national who has been living in the UK since 30 June 2006. The appellant applied on 15 January 2025 under the EU settlement scheme when she was then aged 20. The appellant was married in Pakistan on 12 January 2025. The application was refused on the basis that her marriage did not occurred before the specified date of 31 December 2020. In her notice of appeal the appellant stated that had first met in October 2018 (when she would have been 14) when the sponsor was visiting Pakistan and their “relationship” began two years later (which would have been 2020).
20. In her notice of appeal she had stated that she had been in a relationship with her husband since she was 18 years old (which would have been in 2022). She accepted that the relationship before marriage was not akin to marriage she they did not cohabit before marriage in 20205 on account of their religious beliefs. As at 31 December 2020 she would have been 16 years old.
21. The agreed legal issue is what is meant by a durable relationship akin to marriage. The Judge accepted that the two-year yardstick is taken from domestic legislation and that it is not a rigid notion as set out in the respondent’s guidance.
22. In my judgment the Judge did not err in law in concluding on the evidence that the definition of durable relationship was not met. The period between when the couple first met in 2018 (when the appellant was a minor aged 14) to the date on which she said their relationship began in 2020 (when she was 16) could not have amounted to a durable relationship by 31 December 2020 on any analysis. She stated:
We first met in October 2018 during his visit to Pakistan. Our relationship developed over time, and by October 2020, we had formed a committed partnership. Due to our religious and cultural beliefs, we did not cohabit or engage in a sexual relationship before marriage, which is consistent with Islamic principles of chastity.
23. On the evidence before the Judge (and me) at that time their relationship had the quality of that of couple who were engaged and intent on marrying and the appellant was a fiancée (which is not a relevant qualifying relationship under Appendix EU), rather than a person in a ‘durable relationship’ within that the definition of being ‘akin’ to marriage. Whilst there were subsequent visits in 2024 and 2025 and the couple were unable to have more contact earlier than that due to COVID-19 and the cost of travel that does not on the facts of this case amount to evidence of a durable relationship akin to marriage in existence as at 31 December 2020.
24. Even accepting the appellant’s evidence and that of the sponsor and the witnesses this does not show that the appellant and the sponsor were in a durable relationship akin to marriage as at 31 December 2020. For example the evidence of the sponsor’s mother that: It was clear to me in the early year of 2019 that both Shoaib and Javairia Saleem were committed to each other in a way that went beyond a casual or boyfriend-girlfriend relationship. They communicated daily, shared personal matters, and discussed their future together. Shoaib often spoke to me about their plans, and it was evident that they were building a relationship based on trust, respect, and long-term intention….Their marriage on 12 January 2025 was the natural continuation of a relationship that had already shown seriousness and long-term intention. They continue to support each other emotionally and financially, and I have no doubt that their relationship is genuine, committed, and enduring.”
25. Similarly the evidence of the appellant’s witness Mr Ashraf leads to the same conclusion in respect of the position as at date:
I have known Shoaib and his family for several years, and I was aware of his relationship with Javairia Saleem from its early stages. It was clear to me from the beginning that their intentions were serious and that they were committed to building a future together. Despite the distance and the difficulties caused by COVID-19, Shoaib consistently expressed his long-term intentions, including marriage and living together once circumstances allowed. Based on my personal knowledge of Shoaib and the way he spoke about the relationship, I have no doubt that it was genuine, committed, and intended to lead to marriage well before their wedding took place. I believe their relationship has always been sincere and continues to be strong.
26. Hence on that basis I find that the Judge did not materially err in law in dismissing the appeal.
27. I note that in her original grounds of appeal to the FtT, the appellant raised Article 8 ECHR. The Judge did not determine that issue. However this was not raised in the grounds of appeal to this Tribunal nor in the grant of permission to appeal. No submissions were made by either party in writing or orally and hence I do not address that issue here.

Notice of Decision
1. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal Judge did not make any material error of law and the appeal is dismissed.

S Naik KC

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

25 August 2026