UI2025004056 & Ors [2026] UKAITUR UI2025004056 (10 April 2026)

UI2025004056 & Ors [2026] UKAITUR UI2025004056 (10 April 2026)

The First-tier Tribunal materially erred in law by misapplying the test for family life under Article 8 ECHR, using an incorrect comparator for dependency and failing to consider that family life can be re-established. These errors were material to the outcome, requiring the decision to be set aside and the appeal...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] UKAITUR UI2025004056
Parties
Appellant: MSA; Appellant: FA; Appellant: TA; Appellant: WA; Appellant: JA; Appellant: SWA; Appellant: HA; Appellant: SAL; Respondent: Entry Clearance Officer
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
10 April 2026
Procedural Posture
Immigration Appeal / Appeal From First Tier Tribunal to Upper Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; First-tier Tribunal decision set aside; case remitted for de novo hearing.
Legal Topics
Article 8 ECHR, Family Life, Refugee Reunion, Dependency Test, Error of Law, Remittal Procedure
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Article 8 ECHR Family Life Refugee Reunion Dependency Test Error of Law Remittal Procedure

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MSA

Appellant

FA

Appellant

TA

Appellant

WA

Appellant

JA

Appellant

SWA

Appellant

HA

Appellant

SAL

Appellant

Entry Clearance Officer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Immigration Appeal / Appeal From First Tier Tribunal to Upper Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First-tier Tribunal misapplied the legal test for family life under Article 8 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether there was a material error of law in the assessment of dependency and family ties
  3. 3 Whether the decision should be set aside and remitted for a new hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The First-tier Tribunal materially erred in law by misapplying the test for family life under Article 8 ECHR, using an incorrect comparator for dependency and failing to consider that family life can be re-established. These errors were material to the outcome, requiring the decision to be set aside and the appeal remitted for a de novo hearing.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; First-tier Tribunal decision set aside; case remitted for de novo hearing.

Orders

  • Decision of the First-tier Tribunal set aside in its entirety with no findings preserved.
  • Appeal remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing before a judge other than First-tier Tribunal Judge Aldridge.