Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Tribunal dismissed Benoni Maracine’s paper appeal under Appendix EU and Appendix EU (Family Permit), finding no relevant sponsor, dependency or relevant document.
The First-tier Tribunal dismissed an EUSS appeal after finding no evidence of the claimed family relationship or dependency needed for settled or pre-settled status.
The Tribunal dismissed an EU Settlement Scheme appeal because the appellant failed to show that her father was a relevant sponsor under Appendix EU.
The Court of Appeal held that an unlawfully present applicant could not satisfy paragraph (aaa) of the EUSS durable partner definition. The appeal was dismissed.
Mustaj v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 663 (23 May 2025)
The Court of Appeal held that an unlawful entrant without lawful leave could not satisfy the EUSS durable partner definition in Appendix EU paragraph (aaa).
Sagar, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 3313 (Admin) (19 December 2024)
Judicial review of removal, detention and certification decisions failed because the claimant had no entitlement under Appendix EU and outcome would not differ.
The refusal of Universal Credit to the appellant, a victim of domestic violence with pre-settled status under Appendix EU, was unlawfully discriminatory contrary to Article 14 ECHR, and regulation 9(3)(c)(i) of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 should be disapplied in her case.
Source excerpt
The misunderstanding by the Secretary of State regarding the scope of Zambrano rights (i.e., that a real prospect of obtaining leave to remain under another provision excluded Zambrano rights) did not affect the definition in Appendix EU or the decisions in the Claimants' cases, as both Claimants already had leave under Appendix FM at the relevant times and thus were not Zambrano carers under EU law. The exclusion of such persons from Appendix EU was rational, non-discriminatory, and compliant with statutory duties. No legitimate expectation or accrued right arose for the Second Claimant.
Source excerpt
Admission to the UK by an immigration officer, evidenced by a passport stamp, objectively amounted to facilitation of residence under Article 10(2) of the Withdrawal Agreement. Refusal to accept such evidence and grant pre-settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme breached the applicants' rights under the Withdrawal Agreement.
Source excerpt
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rexhaj [2024] EWCA Civ 784 (11 July 2024)
The Court of Appeal held that leave to enter under an EUSS family permit was not leave under Appendix EU, so the respondent had to prove dependency.
Explore more
