Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-002837
First-tier Tribunal: EU/52391/2023
LE/01497/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision and Reasons Issued:
On 7 September 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE J F W PHILLIPS

Between

SADIQ AYAZ
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Ms S Iftikar, Counsel
For the Respondent: Mr P Deller, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 1 September 2026

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Respondent appeals with permission against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 28 March 2026 allowing the Appellant’s appeal against the Respondent’s decision refusing his application under the EU Settlement Scheme.
Background
2. The Appellant a citizen of Pakistan claimed, in summary, that he had a retained right of residence following the termination of his marriage to an EU national. The Respondent concluded that the Appellant did not have a retained right of residence as his marriage to Ineta Pratusyte was one of convenience.

The appeal to the First-tier Tribunal
3. The Appellant’s appeal against the Respondent’s decision was heard by First-tier Tribunal Judge Stedman in a hearing on 13 March 2026. The Judge found that the Appellant’s marriage to Ineta Pratusyte was not a marriage of convenience and on that basis allowed his appeal.
The appeal to the Upper Tribunal
4. First-tier Tribunal Judge Barker granted permission to appeal on 2 June 2026 in the following terms:
It is arguable that the Judge failed to properly apply the principles of Devaseelan, when assessing the credibility of the appellant’s account. It is arguable that the Judge failed to take the previous adverse credibility findings as the starting point, and/or arguably carried out their own assessment of the same issues previously determined on the same evidence, without adequate reasons.
The hearing
5. Mr Deller on behalf of the Respondent noted that an earlier appeal before Judge Herlihy dated 4 July 2016 had been allowed with it being accepted that the relationship between the Appellant and his spouse was genuine and was not a marriage of convenience. A second appeal before Judge Head dated 12 November 2019, heard without oral evidence, found the marriage was one of convenience. Mr Deller accepted that Devaseelan is not ‘talismanic’ and does not mean that the last decision must always be followed only that it is the starting point. The Rule 24 response is thorough and makes all the relevant points. Judge Stedman having heard oral evidence from both the Appellant and his former wife refers to Devaseelan and quite clearly explains why she departs from the previous negative decision. Having carefully considered the Rule 24 response Mr Deller conceded the appeal.
6. With the appeal having been conceded I did not ask Mr Iftikar to address me.
Findings – Error of Law
7. Following Mr Deller’s concession and on the basis that the decision under appeal very clearly shows that Judge Stedman took the previous decision of Judge Head as her starting point in accordance with Devaseelan and gives very clear, cogent and detailed reasons for departing from that decision I find that there is no error of law. The Respondent’s appeal is dismissed, and the decision of the First-tier Tribunal stands.
Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve the making of a material error on a point of law. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal stands.

Judge J F W Phillips
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal

2 September 2026