Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2023-03-23, EA/04715/2021
| Appeal Number | EA/04715/2021 |
| Hearing Date | 09 January 2023 |
| Published date | 12 April 2023 |
| Date | 23 March 2023 |
| Status | Unreported |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) |
Case No: UI-2022-002967
First-tier Tribunal No: EA/04715/2021
|
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER |
Case No: UI-2022-002967 First-tier Tribunal No: EA/04715/2021 |
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Decision & Reasons Issued:
On the 23 March 2023
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE FRANCES
Between
RUBINA NAZAR
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr M F Nazar, the sponsor attended remotely
For the Respondent: Ms S Cunha, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
Heard at Field House on 9 January 2023
DECISION AND REASONS
-
The appellant is a citizen of Pakistan born on 16 September 1974. She appeals against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Mackenzie, promulgated on 4 February 2022, dismissing her appeal against the refusal of a family permit to enter the UK as an extended family member under the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2016 (‘2016 Regulations’). The appeal was decided on the papers at the appellant’s request.
-
It is not in dispute the sponsor, a Finnish national, is the appellant’s brother and he has pre-settled status in the UK under the EU Settlement Scheme. He is living in Finland where his wife is receiving medical treatment.
The judge’s findings
-
In deciding the appeal on the papers, the judge took into account the documentary evidence at [4] and properly directed himself in law at [5] to [11]. He considered the appellant’s evidence in her witness statement at [15] to [17] and found the appellant was not emotionally dependant on the sponsor at [18]. He then went on to consider whether the appellant was financially dependent on the sponsor. At [20] the judge concluded:
“The Tribunal does not, I find, have information upon which a proper assessment of the Appellant’s financial circumstances and her claimed need for financial assistance can be made.”
-
It was the appellant’s case that the sponsor had been sending her money since 2010. Before March 2020, the appellant received cash in hand from the sponsor or cash from the sponsor brought by someone travelling from Finland to Pakistan. The appellant lived with her mother and the money sent by the sponsor supported them both. There were no receipts for her living expenses because Pakistan was an ‘undocumented economy’ and any receipts were normally discarded. At [19] the judge found:
“While a number of money transfer receipts have been produced, I do not find that the appellant has discharged the burden on her of establishing that she is financially dependent on the sponsor to meet her essential living needs. She lives with her mother in a family home. It is unclear whether the appellant has any inherited interest in this property. While the appellant has produced a list of approximate monthly expenses, the utility bills for the family home are not in her name and no documents have been produced. Although it is claimed that most transactions in Pakistan are completed in cash, I find it surprising that no receipts are produced. Even if it is the case that most people, as is claimed, discard receipts, it seems surprising that the appellant has not made an effort to retain some documentation to verify to the Tribunal her essential living expenses.”
-
The judge considered the refusal letter at [21] and the evidence in the appellant’s witness statement that the sponsor’s wife was receiving medical treatment in Finland. The judge stated:
“However, it is stated that the sponsor’s wife is receiving medical treatment in Finland ‘and it would last for a few more months … ‘. She stated that when the treatment is finished, and the covid-19 situation improved ‘then he would start the job and business in UK’. Although the appellant has produced bank statements for the sponsor from Finland, I find it surprising that no direct evidence has been produced from the sponsor confirming his current personal circumstances and detailing his plans to return to the United Kingdom.”
-
In conclusion, the judge found there was insufficient evidence to show, on the balance of probabilities, that the appellant was dependent on the sponsor to meet her essential living needs under Regulation 8(2) of the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2016.
Grounds of appeal
-
The appellant appealed on the grounds she was emotionally dependent on the sponsor and she used the money sent by the sponsor ‘to fulfil her daily life needs to survive’. The appellant stated she could provide receipts and had misunderstood that she could only rely on receipts in her name. She could not get a job and had no other source of income. There was sufficient evidence of her family members and the circumstances of the sponsor. She stated the court could have requested further information and she attached a statement of the sponsor to the grounds. She submitted there was no detailed guidance on the Home Office website of the evidence required.
-
The sponsor’s statement states that bank statements and evidence of direct family members were before the judge. The sponsor needed to stay in Finland for a three to four months while his wife received medical treatment. He had applied for visas for his wife and children and would rent a house in the UK when the family visas were granted. The appellant would be part of the sponsor’s household in the UK.
-
Permission to appeal was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Stephen Smith in the following terms:
“1. The judge’s decision features a number of arguable errors although it is not entirely clear at this stage whether any of them were material – in other words, whether they made a difference to the outcome of the decision.
2. The appellant is a litigant in person. She objects to the judge’s findings that she is not emotionally dependent upon her brother, the sponsor, and sets the bases for disagreeing with that conclusion. Although she does not seek permission to appeal on this basis, I consider there is a ‘Robinson obvious’ error, in that emotional dependency is not relevant to claimed ‘dependency’ under regulation 8 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations...
To continue reading
Request your trial