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 Court of Appeal dismissed an immigration appeal about Article 25(2) of the Withdrawal Agreement, holding it preserved no right to reside for the appellant.
Ayoola v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 1519 (28 November 2025)
The Court of Appeal dismissed an immigration appeal, holding Article 25(2) of the Withdrawal Agreement did not give the appellant a right to reside under the EUSS.
The Transitional Regulations provide for the consideration and grant of a valid application for an EEA family permit made before the end of the transitional period but determined after that date, where the applicant, as the primary carer of a British national child, meets the criteria described in regulation 11(5)(e) of the 2016 Regulations. The First-tier Tribunal erred in failing to consider Mrs Ahmad’s application as a primary carer. The Secretary of State’s new arguments regarding Mr Rafiu’s status as primary carer were not raised below and cannot be raised now.
Source excerpt
Ahmad v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 829 (03 July 2025)
The Court of Appeal held that transitional regulations preserved powers to decide pre-31 December 2020 EEA family permit applications, including Zambrano primary-carer claims.
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
The Upper Tribunal dismissed an EUSS appeal, holding the appellant’s Article 24(2) Withdrawal Agreement argument was a new matter and, in any event, not breached.
Akinsanya & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 469 (Admin) (11 March 2024)
The High Court held that Appendix EU and related guidance lawfully excluded applicants who already held Appendix FM leave. The judicial review claims were dismissed.
Court of Appeal held that regulation 16 did not exclude Zambrano carers with limited leave to remain, so the Home Office’s contrary EUSS definition was unlawful.
Akinsanya, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rev 3) [2021] EWHC 1535 (Admin) (09 June 2021)
The High Court held that limited leave to remain does not automatically bar a Zambrano derivative right to reside, quashing the refusal under Appendix EU.
Upper Tribunal held the appellant’s residence in Ireland was genuine for Regulation 9 and that the Secretary of State had not proved abuse of rights.
Explore more
