UI-2026-002339

• Status of case: Unreported
• Hearing date: 07 Sep 2026
• Promulgation date: 24 Sep 2026
• Publication date: 09 Oct 2026
• Last updated on: 09 Oct 2026

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-002339
First-tier Tribunal No: EA/50731/2024


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 24th of September 2026


Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DEAKIN

Between

SHIRIN BEGUM
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms S Lucas (counsel) instructed by Masters Law Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms S Keerthy (Senior Home Office Presenting Officer)

Heard at Field House on 7 September 2026


DECISION AND REASONS

1. The Appellant made an application under Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules for entry clearance on 7 March 2024 as the spouse of a British citizen. The Respondent refused her application in a decision dated 5 July 2024 on the basis that the Appellant had failed to provide any evidence in support of that application. The Appellant appealed that decision to the First-tier Tribunal.

2. The matter came before FTJ Dyer on 10 October 2025. At that hearing the Secretary of State’s representative conceded that, on the basis of the evidence now before the Tribunal, the Appellant satisfied the relevant provisions of the Immigration Rules (as at the date of decision). The Secretary of State contested the appeal on the basis that the Appellant was not entitled to rely on material that was not before the Decision Maker when the decision was made.

3. The Judge accepted that the Appellant was entitled to rely on this material. However, and despite it’s not being in issue between the parties, the Judge went on to consider whether the Appellant satisfied the Immigration Rules. He found that the Appellant did not and dismissed her appeal on the basis.

4. The Appellant sought, and was granted, permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on a number of grounds. At Ground 1, the Appellant argued that it was procedurally unfair for the Judge to have departed from the Secretary of State’s concession and to have decided the appeal on the basis of a matter that had not been raised by the Secretary of State and of which the Judge gave the Appellant no notice.

5. In submissions dated 12 August 2026, and confirmed in oral submissions before me, the Secretary of State accepted that the Home Office Presenting Officer had explicitly conceded that the material submitted by the Appellant satisfied the requirements of Appendix FM to the Immigration Rules, including the financial requirements. As such the Parties were in agreement that it was not properly open to the Judge to have gone behind the Secretary of State’s concession and that, in so doing, the Judge materially erred in law, The Parties were in agreement that his decision should be set aside on that basis. I agree. I find that the Judge materially erred in law and set aside his decision.

6. The Parties agreed that I should proceed to remake the decision. In submissions before me, the Secretary of State’s representative confirmed that she made no application to resile from the admission. The parties were therefore agreed that the Appellant satisfied the relevant provisions of the Immigration Rules and that the appeal should be allowed on that basis. Again, I agree.

7. I therefore remake the decision myself and allow the appeal.


Notice of Decision

1. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside.
2. The appeal is allowed.


Andrew Deakin

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber


23 September 2026