Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2026-004605
First-tier Tribunal No: HU/64770/2025

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

12th October 2026

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE NEVILLE

Between

Milena Leles Da Silva
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Decided without a hearing

DECISION AND REASONS
1. In a decision of 28 May 2026, the First-tier Tribunal (“FtT”) dismissed the appellant's appeal against the respondent’s decision to refuse her application for entry clearance. At the appellant’s request, and without objection from the respondent, the appeal had been decided without a hearing. The appellant applied for permission to appeal that decision to the Upper Tribunal, on the following grounds: (written from the perspective of her husband in the UK)
The decision repeatedly states that no explanation was provided regarding the discrepancy between HMRC records and my employment evidence. However, I submitted both documentary evidence and a written explanation addressing this issue.
The evidence included a letter from HMRC confirming that a temporary National Insurance Number was used from 19 August 2024 until October 2025 and that my employment records were subsequently merged with my permanent National Insurance Number record. This directly explained why earlier checks may not have reflected my employment correctly.
I also submitted employment documents, payslips, bank statements showing salary payments, and a written explanation regarding the HMRC records. The Tribunal appears not to have properly considered this evidence when concluding that no explanation had been provided.
As a result, the Tribunal found that the employment documents were false and that the financial requirements were not met. These findings were central to the dismissal of the appeal.
I therefore respectfully submit that the decision contains a material error of law because relevant evidence and explanations were not properly considered. I ask that permission to appeal be granted.
2. Permission to appeal was granted by a different FtT Judge. In a rule 24 Response, the respondent agreed that the FtT had erred in law and that the appeal must be remitted to be re-decided. In a rule 25 Reply, the appellant agreed with that course.
3. By reference to the issues in the case, the parties’ agreement on the outcome, and the overriding objective, I consider it appropriate to decide the appeal without a hearing pursuant to rule 34.
4. I agree that the FtT materially erred by failing to consider the appellant’s evidence, that its decision should be set aside, and that because the appellant has yet to have a fair consideration of her appeal it should be remitted to the FtT with no facts preserved. Because credibility is in issue, I also agree with the parties’ joint position that the appeal should be decided following a hearing, so make that direction: Ghira (R 25, AIP, Fairness) Romania [2025] UKUT 350 (IAC). It remains open to a Judge of the FtT to later make a contrary direction should it then be appropriate.
Notice of Decision
(i) The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error of law and is set aside.
(ii) The case is remitted to a differently constituted First-tier Tribunal for re-hearing with no facts preserved.
(iii) The Upper Tribunal directs that the appeal must be considered at a hearing.
(iv) The First-tier Tribunal may set aside the above direction if it considers it to be appropriate.

J Neville
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber