Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-002349
First-tier Tribunal No: EU/54258/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

5th October 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE FRANCES

Between

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Appellant
and

SAMANTA LAKATOSZ
(ANONYMITY ORDER NOT MADE)
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mrs A Nolan, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: Ms C Zapata-Besso, instructed by Turpin Miller LLP

Heard at Field House on 21 September 2026

DECISION AND REASONS
1. Although this is an appeal by the Secretary of State, I refer to the parties as they were in the First-tier Tribunal. The appellant is a stateless person. She was born in Germany and entered the UK in 2009. Her appeal against the respondent’s decision dated 29 May 2024 refusing her application made on 28 June 2021 under Appendix EU for settled status as a person with a derivative right to reside was allowed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Mace (the judge) on 12 March 2026.
2. The judge took account of the fact that all three of the appellant’s children have been granted settled status under Appendix EU. She found the appellant to be a credible witness and that she has been the primary carer of her children since they were born. The judge found that the children have been resident in the UK continuously since their births and that the appellant has been continuously resident during that time as their carer.
3. The judge stated that the evidence regarding the appellant’s EEA citizen partner (J) largely came from the appellant and she accepted the documentation regarding his employment was limited. At [22] she stated:
However, I accept the appellant’s evidence as reliable in terms of the cash in hand work J undertook. She was able to give evidence of the type of employment and the locations. She also described his working pattern. I accept that J did undertake periods of work in the UK after the date on which V was born in 2010. The issue is whether the work he undertook can be considered genuine and effective and not purely marginal and ancillary. The work need not be full-time or continuous. Cash in hand work will also suffice.
4. The judge made the following relevant findings:
24. I am satisfied that, as the appellant is the primary carer of the children if she were to leave the UK they would also have to leave and would not be able to continue their education here.
25. I am satisfied that J met the definition of a worker and that the appellant has demonstrated that one or more of the children have resided in the UK during that period and while she was their primary carer.
26. On the basis of the facts that I have found, the appellant meets condition 3 of Appendix
EU 11.
5. The respondent appealed on the grounds that there was no evidence that J’s cash-in-hand employment was fully declared to HMRC, taxed, and processed through PAYE (Pay As You Earn) such as to amount to lawful employment. It was submitted that if it had been so declared the appellant would be able to produce the relevant evidence for this employment to demonstrate that he was a worker as defined by Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2012/C 326/01). Therefore, there was no evidence that J was exercising Treaty rights. Further, the judge failed to make a finding on whether the children were self-sufficient persons, in accordance with EU11.
6. Permission was granted by the judge on 5 May 2026 on the following grounds:
It was acknowledged in the decision that the evidence of the EU national’s work was very limited and reasons were given for finding the rules were met. However, it is reasonably arguable that the work did not amount to lawful employment on the evidence before me.
7. Mrs Nolan relied on the grounds and submitted the judge failed to give adequate reasons for her finding at [25]. Having found that the documentary evidence was limited she failed to make an assessment in accordance with Begum (EEA-worker-jobseeker) Pakistan [2011] UKUT 00275 (IAC). There was no documentary evidence from 2008 onwards. The judge failed to make a finding that J’s employment was genuine and effective and that finding was not open to her on the oral evidence. The judge failed to give adequate reasons at [22] to support her finding at [25]. Mrs Nolan made no submissions on whether the J’s employment was lawful.
8. Ms Zapato-Besso relied on the skeleton argument before the First-tier Tribunal and JA v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (ESA) [2012] UKUT 122 (AAC), which supported the appellant’s submission before the Frist-tier Tribunal that J would have qualified for worker status even during periods where he was working “cash in hand”. She submitted the grounds amounted to disagreements with the judge’s findings. The respondent had failed to provide a note of the hearing to show that the oral evidence did not support the judge’s conclusion that J was a worker. There was no gap in the judge’s reasoning. The judge was entitled to rely on the appellant’s oral evidence in which she described the type of employment, the location and working pattern. The judge applied the correct test and gave adequate reasons. There was no error of law in the decision.
Conclusions and reasons
9. In Begum, the UT held:
When deciding whether an EEA national is a worker for the purposes of the EEA Regulations, regard must be had to the fact that the term has a meaning in EU law, that it must be interpreted broadly and that it is not conditioned by the type of employment or the amount of income derived. But a person who does not pursue effective and genuine activities, or pursues activities on such a small scale as to be regarded as purely marginal and ancillary or which have no economic value to an employer, is not a worker. In this context, regard must be given to the nature of the employment relationship and the rights and duties of the person concerned to decide if work activities are effective and genuine.
10. The judge applied this test when considering J’s employment. She was entitled to rely on the oral evidence of the appellant having found that she was a credible witness. There was no gap in the judge’s reasoning and the judge gave adequate reasons for finding that J met the definition of worker.
11. It is apparent on reading the decision as a whole that the judge took into account all relevant matters. She acknowledged the limited documentary evidence of J’s employment and adequately explained why the oral evidence of the appellant was of sufficient detail to satisfy her J’s employment was genuine and effective. She properly directed herself in law and her conclusions were open to her on the evidence before her.
12. It was not in dispute that, having found that J was a worker, there was no need to consider whether the children were self-sufficient. If the finding at [25] was upheld there was no need for me to consider the alternative scenario.
13. I find there was no error of law in the decision of 12 March 2026 and I dismiss the respondent’s appeal.

Notice of Decision
Appeal dismissed

J Frances

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

30 September 2026