Isabel Suescan Duarte v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: HU/67437/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Columbus House, Newport On 21 September 2026 Before FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WEBB Between

MS ISABEL SUESCAN DUARTE and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT Representation: For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Ms E Duffy (Presenting Officer) Ms S Alban (Legal Representative)

DECISION AND REASONS

NOTICE OF DECISION 1. The appeal is allowed on human rights grounds.

REASONS Appellant Respondent 2. The appellant, a citizen of the United States, has appealed against the respondent’s decision dated 12 December 2024 refusing her application to remain in the UK made on 25 October 2023.

BACKGROUND 3.

4. The background to this appeal is set out in the information contained on myHMCTS. The appellant asserts a right to remain in the UK on human rights grounds based on her private and family life in the UK with her daughter and grandson. © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2026 5. The appellant also asserts that if she were returned to the US that her health would deteriorate and cause her suffering. Appeal Number: HU/67437/2024

HEARING Format 6. The hearing was held as a hybrid. The interpreter attended by video with the other participants in the hearing room. There were no issues with any of the participants being able to see or hear each other and I was satisfied that the format enabled a fair hearing. Preliminary issues 7. Ms Alban made an application to rely on the email from the family’s GP that had been uploaded on the morning of the hearing. Ms Duffy confirmed the respondent did not object to the appellant relying on the evidence. I concluded it was in the interests of justice for the document to be admitted into evidence.

8. Ms Duffy confirmed that the respondent did not challenge the evidence of any of the witnesses, except the appellant. She also confirmed that the only evidence of the appellant that was challenged related to what support the appellant would receive on return to the US. Issues in dispute 9. Having discussed the issues at the start of the hearing the parties agreed the following about the issues the Tribunal needs to address. Article 3 ECHR (a) Is the appellant a seriously ill person? (b) If yes, is there an absence of, or a lack of access to treatment in the US? (c) If yes, is there a risk the appellant will be exposed to a serious, rapid, and irreversible decline in their state of health resulting in intense suffering, or to a significant reduction in life expectancy? (d) If the Tribunal finds there is a prima facie case, has the respondent dispelled any serious doubts raised?

10. Ms Duffy confirmed that no assurances had been sought from the US authorities about any treatment that may be available. Article 8 ECHR 11. Are there very significant obstacles to the appellant’s reintegration in the US?

12. In the alternative, does the decision result in unjustifiably harsh consequences? Evidence and submissions Appeal Number: HU/67437/2024 13. The appellant gave evidence and followed the proceedings with the help of a Spanish interpreter. At no point did she or the interpreter indicate any difficulties in understanding each other.

14. The appellant gave evidence: she confirmed her witness statement and was cross- examined by Ms Duffy who asked only five questions.

15. After I heard evidence, Ms Duffy and Ms Alban both made submissions. Ms Duffy only relied on the reason for refusal letter and the respondent’s review.

16. I have made a note of the evidence and submissions in my record of proceedings and have taken it all into account, along with the stitched bundle (SB), medical documents and the respondent’s review downloaded from myHMCTS.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK 17. Where an Article 3 medical claim is raised an appellant must show that they are a seriously ill person and that there is a lack of treatment available in the country to which they will be returned. If that is shown the appellant must also show that there is a risk they will be exposed to a serious, rapid, and irreversible decline in their state of health resulting in intense suffering, or to a significant reduction in life expectancy. If a prima facie case is made out the burden passes to the respondent to dispel any serious doubts or to obtain assurances from the country of return about any treatment.

18. In relation to Article 8, the question is whether the refusal breaches the appellant’s right to respect for private and family life. That right is qualified. The appellant must establish on the balance of probabilities the factual circumstances on which they rely, and that Article 8(1) is engaged. If it is, then I have to decide whether the interference with the appellant’s right is justified under Article 8(2).

19. If the appellant meets the requirements of the Immigration Rules the interference is not proportionate, TZ (Pakistan) [2018] EWCA Civ 1109.

20. Under Appendix Private life to the Immigration Rules the requirements to be met by an adult applicant who has lived continuously in the UK for less than 20 years at the date of application are that “there would be very significant obstacles to the applicant’s integration into the country to which he would have to go if required to leave the UK.” 21. The concept of “integration” for the purposes of Appendix Private Life requires a broad evaluative assessment. The question is whether the appellant will be enough of an insider to understand how life in the society in the country of return is carried on and if they have capacity to participate in it. This includes whether the appellant will have a reasonable opportunity to be accepted, to function on a day-to-day basis and to build up within a reasonable time a variety of human relationships to give substance to the individual's private or family life.

22. If an appellant does not meet the Immigration Rules, the public interest is normally in refusing leave to enter or remain. The exception is where refusal results in unjustifiably harsh consequences for the appellant or a family member such that refusal is not proportionate. I take into account the factors set out in section 117B Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and balance the public interest considerations against the factors relied upon by the appellant. Appeal Number: HU/67437/2024

FINDINGS Facts in dispute 23. I have not set out every point or piece of evidence, only those that are most important to my decision. In making my findings I have considered all the evidence that I was given. Many of the facts are not in dispute between the parties.

24. The appellant is 82. She has poor vision, mobility and cardiac problems. She has lived most of her life in the US. She has visited the UK on several occasions since 2006 but most recently entered the UK in January 2023.

25. The appellant’s son who was caring for her in the UK passed away in February 2017.

26. The respondent argues that the appellant’s daughter-in-law remains in the US and could provide support to the appellant if she were to return. The appellant’s consistent evidence has been that following the death of her son, her daughter-in-law did want to take care of her because her mother was dying of cancer and her father had Alzheimer’s.

27. I accept the appellant’s evidence, it has been consistent and it is plausible that a non- blood relative would be unwilling to continue providing significant support to the appellant given her frailty now. I find that if the appellant were to return her daughter- in-law would not provide support. I also find that there are no other family members in the US who would be able to or willing to provide support.

28. The appellant does have her own income of just over $900 each month.

29. The appellant has been living with her daughter and grandson in the UK. Both her daughter and grandson have suffered from poor mental health, in particular because of a history of domestic violence and self-harm.

30. The appellant’s daughter has been hospitalised recently. During that period, the appellant was dependent on members of the church to assist her with day-to-day activities. 31.

32. I find that because of the appellant’s age and frailty she is reliant on others to help her carry out day-to-day activities, including the application of pain-relieving gel to her lower back. I also find that because of the history of the family that the appellant, her daughter, and grandson rely on each other for significant emotional support. I find that although the family would be able to remain in contact, that would not properly replicate the support provided by them living together.

33. The appellant’s evidence is not that she would be unable to obtain medical treatment on return to the US, just that it would be difficult for her to access because of her health poor vision and mobility. There is no country information before me that shows that treatment for her conditions would be unable or inaccessible for her. Appeal Number: HU/67437/2024 Application of the facts to the legal framework Article 3 34. The appellant has various medical conditions that affect her ability to operate on a day- to-day basis. However, I find the conditions that she has, alone or in combination do not demonstrate that she is a seriously ill person.

35. The appellant has not provided any evidence about the availability of treatment in the US for her conditions. Nor has she said that she would be unable to access treatment because of its cost. The appellant has only said that it would be difficult for her to obtain treatment because her poor vision and mobility issues would make it difficult.

36. I find difficulties in accessing treatment are not the same as it being unavailable or inaccessible for an appellant. I find the appellant has not shown to the required standard that she would be unable to access treatment on return to the US.

37. There is no medical evidence that demonstrates what would happen to the appellant if she were unable to access the required treatment of her conditions. I find the appellant has not demonstrated to the required standard that she will be exposed to a serious, rapid, and irreversible decline in her state of health resulting in intense suffering, or to a significant reduction in life expectancy on return to the US.

38. For the reasons stated above I also find there is no real risk the appellant would suffer treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR. Article 8 ECHR 39. The respondent does not challenge that the appellant has a family life with her daughter and grandson in the UK, or that she has a wider private life so that Article 8 is engaged.

40. Identifying if there are very significant obstacles to the appellant’s integration requires a broad evaluative assessment of whether she will be enough of an insider in terms of understanding how life in the society in the country of return is carried on and a capacity to participate in it, so as to have a reasonable opportunity to be accepted there, to be able to operate on a day-to-day basis in that society and to build up within a reasonable time a variety of human relationships to give substance to the individual's private or family life.

41. The issue is not whether the appellant has made the UK their home but whether the appellant would not be able to establish a meaningful life in the US.

42. The respondent points to the appellant’s familiarity with society and language in the US because that is where she has spent most of her life. While those are aspects that may show an understanding of life in a country, it does not automatically flow that they enable a person to have capacity to participate in society.

43. I find that, just as a child’s private and family life is focused on their parents, that this particular appellant’s private and family life is now focused on her daughter and grandson. I find that although she might be able to obtain treatment for her condition Appeal Number: HU/67437/2024 44. 45. in the US, that her continuing symptoms of poor vision, mobility and poor mental health will make it difficult for her to create new meaningful relationships with others and carry out day-to-day activites. I have found that her daughter-in-law would not provide any help. The limited support that could be provided by her UK based family by visits or modern means of communication would be of very limited assistance to reintegration. I find that she would be isolated. I find she would be able to exist in the US but would lack the practical capacity to participate in society. I find she would have no meaningful life there. I note what the respondent says about the appellant entering the UK with no expectation of being able to remain reducing the weight to be given to private life. I also consider the points raised that some of the evidence demonstrates that the appellant has received medical treatment in the UK in the past and may suggest she entered the UK with the intention of remaining. However, those are not factors that affect the appellant’s ability to reintegrate. I am not balancing the various interests in this part of my assessment but applying the Immigration Rules which are a statement of policy approved by the UK parliament.

46. Taking my findings above, I find the appellant would not be able to establish a meaningful life in the US and that there are very significant obstacles to her integration.

47. As the appeal meets the Immigration Rules, I do not need to carry out a full balancing exercise.

48. As the appellant meets the requirements of the Immigration Rules, the decision is disproportionate and does unlawfully interfere with the appellant’s rights protected by Article 8 ECHR. TO THE RESPONDENT - FEE AWARD As I have allowed the appeal I have considered whether or not to make a fee award. I have decided to make no fee award because my decision is based on evidence that was not before the decision maker. N Webb First-tier Tribunal Judge 28 September 2026 6