Alin Nicolae v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: EU/59399/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Newport On 3rd September 2026 Before FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BOYES Between

ALIN NICOLAE and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT Appellant Respondent Representation: For the Appellant: For the Respondent: No representative and did not attend No Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS 1. This is the decision of the Tribunal in the appeal of the Appellant against the decision of the Respondent made on 23 October 2024. Background 2. This case was listed for a final hearing on 3rd September 2026. The appellant had originally asked for a decision to be made without an oral hearing however a Judge had determined that the appellant should be afforded a further opportunity to attend. She did not take that opportunity however. The Hearing 3. The Appellant failed to attend the hearing. I considered rule 28 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014. I was © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2026 Appeal number: EU/59399/2024 satisfied that the Appellant had actual notice of the hearing because it was uploaded to the case management system and she was notified by way of formal notice of the hearing date and time. It was in the interests of justice to proceed without the Appellant because the Home Office are entitled to a decision in a reasonable timeframe as much as any appellant is and the issues in the appeal were narrow, straight forward and the appellant had been afforded the chance to attend and had not taken it.

4. The Respondent was not represented at the hearing. I considered rule 28 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014. I was satisfied that [the Respondent had actual notice of the hearing 5. The issues the Tribunal must decide are: (a) Does the appellant qualify for leave to remain or settled status under Appendix EU or Appendix EU (Family Permit)? (b) Does the decision breach the appellant's rights under the Withdrawal Agreement? Evidence 6. I had sight of the appeal bundle. The appellant chose not to provide a statement or any documents in support of her appeal other than the appeal form. Legal Framework 7. The grounds of appeal open to the appellant are that the respondent's decision either does not comply with the Residence Scheme Immigration Rules or does not comply with the Withdrawal Agreement between the UK and the EU. The Residence Scheme Immigration Rules are in Appendix EU and Appendix EU (Family Permit) of the Immigration Rules. Facts 8. The appellant is not entitled to any status under the EUSS Determination of the Issues 9. The appellant made an application under the EU Settlement Scheme as a Joining Family Member on 4 June 2023 (application reference 3434-2833-9744-5940), naming Gigi Nicolae as the sponsor. The application was refused on 30 August 2023 on the basis that insufficient evidence had been provided of residence in the United Kingdom and no evidence had been submitted demonstrating dependency upon the named sponsor. I am satisfied that no appeal was lodged against that decision.

10. The appellant made a further application under the EU Settlement Scheme as a Joining Family Member on 17 December 2023 (application reference 3434-5401-9165-0446), naming Robert Nicolae as the sponsor. The application was refused on 9 April 2024 because no evidence had been provided to establish the claimed family relationship with the sponsor and no evidence had been submitted demonstrating dependency upon the sponsor. I am satisfied that no appeal was brought against that refusal. Appeal number: EU/59399/2024 11. The appellant submitted a third application under the EU Settlement Scheme as a Joining Family Member on 10 June 2024 (application reference 3434-4123-9623- 7032), again naming Robert Nicolae as the sponsor. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

18. I considered whether the appellant met the requirements for settled status under rules EU11 and EU11A of Appendix EU. I concluded that the appellant, being over the age of 21, was required to demonstrate dependency upon the relevant EEA citizen or upon that person's spouse or civil partner. I find that no evidence of such dependency had been provided. I have considered whether the appellant had provided evidence of the claimed family relationship. I am satisfied that the appellant had not provided a valid registration certificate, family permit, residence card, EU Settlement Scheme biometric residence card, EU Settlement Scheme family permit, birth certificate, or any other documentation capable of establishing the claimed relationship to the sponsor. I find that, in the decision under appeal, the respondent referred to the appellant's previous applications and refusals. I am satisfied that the respondent noted that, despite the issues identified in the earlier applications, no evidence had been provided with the third application establishing either the claimed family relationship with the sponsor or the required dependency for the six months preceding the application. I therefore concluded that the appellant did not meet the requirements for settled status as a joining family member of a relevant sponsor. I considered whether the appellant met the requirements for

pre-settled status under rules EU14 and EU14A of Appendix EU. I concluded that, for the same reasons, the appellant had failed to provide evidence demonstrating that he was a dependent child of a relevant sponsor and therefore did not meet the requirements for pre-settled status. I find that the respondent made a number of attempts to obtain further evidence from the appellant between 1 October 2024 and 15 October 2024. In particular, I find that contact was made by telephone and email on 1 October 2024 and by email and text message on 15 October 2024, seeking evidence of both the claimed family relationship and dependency upon the sponsor. I am satisfied that no response was received to those requests. I ultimately concluded that the information and evidence available did not demonstrate that the appellant met the requirements for settled status under rules EU11 and EU11A, or for pre-settled status under rules EU14 and EU14A of Appendix EU. I further considered whether any other eligibility requirements under Appendix EU were met and concluded that they were not. Accordingly, the application was refused under rule EU6 of Appendix EU. Notice of Decision 19. The appeal is dismissed. To the Respondent – Fee Award No fee is paid or payable and therefore there can be no fee award. Signature Signed IDB First-tier Tribunal Judge Boyes Appeal number: EU/59399/2024 Date 3.9.26 4