Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-003578
UI-2026-003759
First-tier Tribunal No: HU/02332/2024
HU/02333/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

1st October 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SEELHOFF

Between

MR DAWIT DIBEKULU DEMEKE
MR HABTEWELKD DEIBEKULU DEMEKE
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE ENTRY CLEARANCE OFFICER
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mrs Johnrose, Legal Representative Lei Dat and Baig Solicitors (by video link)
For the Respondent: Ms S Mackenzie, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer (by video link)

Heard at Field House on 17 September 2026

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellants are nationals of Eritrea and are brothers. The Appellants were orphaned at a young age and were then cared for by their brother. The brother came to the UK and was recognised as a Refugee. The Appellants then applied for family reunion to join their brother in the UK on the 11th May 2024. The Applications were refused on the 26th November 2024.
Appeal Before the First-tier
2. The appeal was heard by Judge Alis on the 1st October 2025. The appeal was dismissed in a decision dated the 17th October 2025. The judge accepted that there was family life but held that the interference in that family life was proportionate.
Grant of Permission to Appeal
3. Permission to appeal was granted on all grounds by Judge Mulready of the First-tier tribunal considering that it was arguable that the Judge had applied too high a standard and that the Judge may not have adequately considered all factors in the case.
The Hearing
4. At the outset of the hearing, it was confirmed that the Respondent continued to resist the appeal.
5. Mrs Johnrose made submissions in support of the appeal and Ms Mackenzie responded. At the end of the hearing, I reserved the decision.
Reasons
6. A skeleton argument was filed on behalf of the Appellant which reformulates the grounds significantly in particular ground 1. There has not been a formal application to amend the grounds and so I focus my consideration on the grounds that permission was granted on. That said many of the issues raised in the skeleton under ground 1 do more logically fall withing the scope of ground 2 so I have considered those arguments.
Ground 1
7. The original ground complained that the Judge had failed to consider the article 8 rights of the Appellants overseas. It is accepted in light of IA and others v SSHD [2025] EWCA Civ 1516 that the focus should be on the Sponsor’s article 8 rights which were formed with his siblings prior to his coming here.
8. Ultimately this is not material to the appeal as it is accepted that article 8 family life is engaged and the Respondent has not challenged that.
9. Ground 1 as pleaded goes on to assert that there was a failure to consider the risks of refoulement to Eritrea when assessing article 8.
10. What this ground ignores is the judge’s adverse credibility findings in respect of the Appellants’ circumstances including finding that a Guardianship order apparently issued in 2016 was actually issued in 2024 [41 (c)], that they family did not in fact fear for the Appellant’s safety and wellbeing in Ethiopia [41 (d)], and that the Sponsor’s in laws were in fact willing and able to look after the Appellants in the long term [43]. This is an unchallenged rejection of the Appellants’ assertions about the instability of their circumstances in Ethiopia.
11. The credibility findings are brief but are unchallenged and in that context a ground of appeal that is predicated on the tribunal having accepted that the circumstances are exactly as they were asserted to be cannot demonstrate an error of law. Accordingly I find that ground 1 does not disclose an arguable error of law.
Ground 2
12. As pleaded ground 2 argues that the judge erroneously failed to apply the test of “unjustifiably harsh consequences” when assessing whether the decision was contrary to article 8.
13. The grounds acknowledge that the Judge identified the correct test [15 and 22] but complain that the subsequent assessment focuses;
“Almost entirely on public-interest considerations and credibility inconsistencies”
14. The grounds then refer to the judge concluding that there were no “very compelling circumstances” [44] which reinforces the sense that the wrong test was applied.
15. I am satisfied that any error is one of working rather than substance. The judge has referenced the correct test and then carried out a balance sheet assessment of the case weighing the public interest against those of the Sponsor and the Appellants [35-44]. The case of Butt v SSHD [2025] EWCA Civ 189 when discussing GEN 3.2 of Appendix FM confirmed that a failure to reference it may be an error but the underlying requirement is still to conduct a balancing exercise considering all relevant factors. The same principles apply to consideration of Appendix Family Reunion FRP 7.1 which is the relevant provision of the Immigration Rules in this case. The reference to “very compelling circumstances” as opposed to “unjustifiably harsh consequences” is unfortunate but does not indicate that the reasons given are invalid.
16. I further note as I did in respect of ground 1 that the case is predicated on the credibility of the account having been accepted which it was not.
17. I find that the tribunal did not make an error of law as alleged.
Materiality
18. It is also important to note that there was one significant error in the decision which acted in favour of the Appellants. The global assessment of article 8 with reference to FRP 7.1 is to be conducted as of the date of the tribunal decision and not the date of application. As of the date of the decision of the First-tier, the first Appellant was 18 years old and weeks away from his 19th birthday. Accordingly contrary to the findings of the First-tier he was not under 18 [28 (b)] and was therefore not to be considered as a child. The second Appellant was therefore not only in the care of the Sponsor’s in-laws, but in the care of a healthy young adult. Had that been weighed in the balance the appeal would have been less strong than Judge Alis found.
Disposal
19. I have found that there were no errors of law in the decision which disadvantaged the Appellants and no basis on which to set it aside.
20. Having found that there were no errors of law it is not necessary for me to address the applications to admit further evidence.
Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-tier tribunal did not contain material errors of law and shall stand.
The appeals are dismissed.

A. Seelhoff

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

29th September 2026