Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-003851
First-tier Tribunal No: EU/79409/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

15th October 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LOUGHRAN

Between

ARISTOTELIS RAPTIS
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: In Person
For the Respondent: Ms A Nolan, Home Officer Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 24 September 2026

DECISION AND REASONS

Introduction

1. The Appellant appeals with permission of the Upper Tribunal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (“the Judge”) dated 14 April 2026 dismissing the Appellant’s appeal under the Immigration Citizens’ Rights Appeals (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.

Background

2. The Appellant was born on 24 March 1997 and is a citizen of Greece. The Appellant applied under the European Union Settlement Scheme (‘EUSS’) as a family member of a qualifying British citizen.
3. The Appellant’s application was based on the fact that he had resided with the qualifying British citizen, his partner (‘the Sponsor’) in an EEA country (Greece) between May 2019 and October 2019, a duration of five months.

4. On 5 December 2025 the Respondent refused the Appellant’s application. The Respondent concluded that he did not meet the requirements for settled status or pre-settled status as a family member of a qualifying British citizen. The Respondent considered that the Appellant had not provided any evidence to confirm that he resided with the Sponsor in an EEA country (Greece) between May 2019 and October 2019.

The Appeal to the First-tier Tribunal

5. The Appellant appealed against that decision under regulation 36 of the Immigration (Citizens’ Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. The Appellant requested a decision without a hearing.

6. The Respondent reviewed her decision on 5 March 2026. In her review, the Respondent acknowledged that the Appellant and the Sponsor had been in a civil partnership since 11 April 2023. The Respondent recorded and acknowledged the evidence the Appellant had provided to demonstrate their joint residency in Greece between May 2019 and October 2019, but considered that there was no evidence to show that the Appellant and the Sponsor resided together or were in a durable partnership. The Respondent noted that the documents showed that the Sponsor is self-sufficient, owned the property outright and did not pay rent, but there was no evidence to show that the Appellant resided with him. The Respondent noted that the Appellant’s payslips and letter from the University showing that the Appellant was registered there did not show an address. The Respondent considered that the photographs and communication chats were not sufficient to demonstrate a durable partnership. The Respondent concluded that as there was no further evidence to show that the Appellant and the Sponsor had a genuine family life that was created and strengthened during the residence in an EEA country, the Appellant failed to meet the requirements for a settled or pre-settled status as a family member of a qualifying British Citizen under Appendix EU.

7. The appeal came before the Judge on 13 April 2026. The Appellant was not represented, and the appeal was determined on the papers.

8. In a decision dated 14 April 2026 the Judge dismissed the Appellant’s appeal.

9. The Judge considered the evidence provided by the Appellant but concluded that the Appellant had failed to evidence that there was a genuine relationship between him and his partner in Greece, nor that there was genuine and family life between them.

The Appeal to the Upper Tribunal

10. The Appellant appealed against the Judge’s decision. The Appellant’s grounds are not particularised. At the hearing the Appellant agreed that the grounds could be summarised as follows:

Ground 1: The Judge misunderstood relevant documents that were before the First-tier Tribunal.
Ground 2: The hearing was procedurally unfair because the Appellant relied on documents that were not considered by the Judge because the Appellant was prevented from uploading them onto the system.

11. The First-tier Tribunal refused the Appellant permission to appeal. However, the Upper Tribunal granted the Appellant permission to appeal on the following basis:

“It is at least arguable that the Judge failed to take into account material evidence such as NatWest Bank documents which included the Appellant’s partner’s address and the Appellant’s wage slips and that the Judge misconstrued the utility bill by failing to appreciate which billing period the bill was for. It is also arguable that the Appellant was prevented from uploading more documentary evidence because of administrative failings at the First-tier Tribunal which resulted in unfairness.”

12. The Respondent did not provide a response under rule 24 of the Upper Tribunal Procedure Rules.

13. The Appellant was present at the hearing. A Greek interpreter had been provided by the Upper Tribunal. The Appellant indicated that he had sufficient English to proceed in English and only use the interpreter if there was something that he did not understand and it was agreed that we would proceed on that basis.

14. The Appellant submitted that the Judge had erred in their approach to the following documents:

Utility Bill

15. The translation of the utility bill is in the bundle prepared for the error of law hearing at page 57. The Judge refers to this utility bill at [8] stating:

“The Appellant submits there was some evidence of the joint residence relied upon despite the Respondent’s finding otherwise. He refers to utility bills from Greece showing 4 months of residency. He refers to items at pages 7 and 8 of his bundle. In fact, when one looks at these documents, it is a single page utility bill dated 13 February 2020 in the name of his partner. It does not contain the Appellant’s name.”

16. The Appellant took me to the translation of the utility and stated that it is for a consumption period between 11 June 2019 and 10 October 2019. The date that the Judge refers to (13 February 2020) is next to the words, ‘Next Metering’. The Appellant explains that is when the next consumption period would start and that therefore the Judge misunderstood the date of the utility bill and therefore what it showed.

NatWest Bank statements

17. The NatWest Bank statements are in the bundle prepared for the error of law hearing at page 70. The Judge refers to the Bank Statements at [8] where the Judge records:

“The Appellant also relies on bank statements for his partner but these do not evidence the Appellant being resident with his partner, or in Greece. They do not contain any address.”

18. The Appellant submits that the Bank Statements are relevant because they are in the Sponsor’s name and show that the Sponsor was undertaking transactions in Greece throughout the relevant period.

The Appellant’s payslips

19. The Appellant’s payslips appear at page 70 of the bundle prepared for the error of law hearing. There is no mention of the Appellant’s payslips at all in the decision of the First-tier Tribunal.

20. The Appellant submits that they demonstrate that he was in Greece during the relevant period. They start in July 2019 and they end in September 2019. Ms Nolan accepted that they show transactions in Greece.

Land Registry Document

21. The Appellant also took me to a Land Registry document in the Sponsor’s name which shows that he owns a house in Mykonos. The Judge refers to this document at [8] stating that it does not evidence a relationship.

22. The Appellant explained that this document was not intended to demonstrate that their relationship. It was provided to demonstrate that the Sponsor was self-sufficient.

Alpha Bank statements

23. The Appellant also wanted to rely on Bank statements in his name from Alpha Bank. The Appellant tried to upload them, but was not able to. The Appellant relied on messages with HMCTS demonstrating that he had been unable to upload the documents.

24. The Alpha Bank statements show the Appellant’s name and transactions from 15 May 2019 to 18 October 2019, in Greece. Ms Nolan accepted this and that they were not before the First-tier Tribunal.

25. The Appellant submitted that the Judge had failed to consider the evidence before the First-tier Tribunal adequately, failed to consider it together and that he had an unfair hearing because the Alpha Bank statements were not before the First-tier Tribunal.

26. In response, Ms Nolan submitted that the First-tier Tribunal had assessed all the evidence and that if the Tribunal had erred by misconstruing the evidence it was not material or any failure to consider evidence was also not material. Ms Nolan maintained that the evidence the Appellant relied on did not show there was evidence of cohabitation or that the British citizen partner was exercising his Treaty rights. Accordingly, she sought to persuade me that any failure to consider the documentation was not material.

27. At the end of the hearing I indicated to the parties that I was satisfied that the First-tier Tribunal had materially erred in law, that the decision would be set aside and that my reasons would follow in writing.

Discussion

28. I am satisfied that the Judge misunderstood the dates on the utility bill. The Judge recorded that it was dated 13 February 2020. The Judge did not refer to the other dates clearly stated in the utility bill which plainly states that the consumption period is from 11 June 2019 to 10 October 2019. I am satisfied that that evidence is material to whether the Sponsor was living in Greece during the relevant period.

29. I am also satisfied that the Judge failed to consider the Appellant’s payslips. There was no reference to the Appellant’s payslips anywhere in the decision even though they were before the First-tier Tribunal. The Appellant’s payslips corroborate the Appellant’s account that he was in Greece during the relevant period. They were therefore relevant to the Judge’s consideration.

30. Finally, I am satisfied that it was procedurally unfair that the Appellant was not able to upload the Alpha Bank statements he wanted to rely on. As outlined above and as accepted by Ms Nolan, they show that the Appellant made transactions in Greece during the relevant period. They are therefore relevant to the consideration of whether the Appellant was living with his partner in Greece during that period.

Disposal
31. Applying AEB [2022] EWCA Civ 1512 and Begum (Remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 00046 (IAC), I have considered whether to retain the matter for remaking in the Upper Tribunal in line with the general principles set out in paragraph 7 of the Senior President’s Practice Statements. I am satisfied that it should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal because I found that there was procedural unfairness.

Notice of Decision
32. The decision of the First tier Tribunal contains material errors of law. Accordingly, it is set aside in its entirety with no findings of fact preserved.
33. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh in person hearing to be heard by a different Judge.

Judge Loughran

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

15 October 2026