Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-004340

First-tier Tribunal No: EU/52762/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 12 October 2026

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WEBB

Between

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Appellant
and

JACOB AMARH
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms G Storrie (Counsel)
For the Respondent: Mr S Walker (Senior Presenting Officer)

Heard at Field House on 9 October 2026

DECISION AND REASONS

1. This is an appeal by the Secretary of State against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal Judge (the Judge), promulgated on 8 June 2026, allowing Mr Amarh’s appeal. The decision was made on the papers. Permission to appeal was granted by a different First-tier Tribunal Judge on 8 August 2026.

The hearing

2. I had before me a 230-page bundle that contained the decision being appealed, grounds of appeal, the decision granting permission, and all the documents that were before the First-tier Tribunal.

3. The parties agreed with me that there was an error of law in the decision and that I was able to remake the decision allowing the appeal based on the unchallenged factual findings of the First-tier Tribunal.

4. I indicated that I would be giving written reasons reflecting the above.

Errors of law

5. Permission was granted on the single ground: that the Judge erred in law in finding the appellant had completed five years of continuous residence as the family member of an EEA citizen.

6. The relevant rule for settled status is found in Appendix EU to the Immigration Rules at EU 11.3 and is as follows:

“(a) The applicant:
(i) is a relevant EEA citizen; or
(ii) is (or, as the case may be, for the relevant period was) a family member of a relevant EEA citizen; or
(iii) is (or, as the case may be, for the relevant period was) a family member who has retained the right of residence by virtue of a relationship with a relevant EEA citizen; or
(iv) is a person with a derivative right to reside; or
(v) is a person with a Zambrano right to reside; or
(vi) is a person who had a derivative or Zambrano right to reside; and
(b) The applicant has completed a continuous qualifying period of five years in any (or any combination) of those categories; and
(c) Since then no supervening event has occurred in respect of the applicant”

7. It is common ground that the requirement must be met at the date of application in accordance with EU 11 of Appendix EU to the Immigration Rules.

8. The Judge found, based on a concession by the Secretary of State in the review, that Mr Amarh was married to an EEA citizen on 2 October 2020. There was no evidence before the Judge that demonstrated Mr Amarh had been resident in the UK in any of the other categories in Rule 11.3(a) before that date.

9. It follows that on the facts as found, Mr Amarh’s continuous qualifying period did not start until 2 October 2020. The date of the application was 30 June 2021: he could not have five years of continuous qualifying residence at the date of application.

10. I find the Judge made an error of law in finding the appellant had five years continuous qualifying residence as a family member of an EEA national.

11. I find the decision does contain a material error of law. I set aside the decision of the Judge but preserve all the factual findings.

Remaking

12. Mr Walker conceded that on the facts as found by the Judge, that were unchallenged by the grounds of appeal, Mr Amarh qualified for pre-settled status under EU 14 of Appendix EU to the immigration rules.

13. The relevant facts were that Mr Amarh had entered the UK in 2011, married an EEA citizen in October 2020 and had remained in the UK continuously until the date of the application.

14. In light of the concession, I find the appellant qualifies for pre-settled status.

Notice of decision

15. The decision of the Judge, promulgated on 8 June 2026, does contain a material error of law and is set aside. All factual findings of the Judge are preserved.

16. I remake the decision allowing the appeal on the basis the appellant qualifies for pre-settled status under EU 14 of Appendix EU to the Immigration Rules.

N Webb

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
9 October 2026