UI2026000120 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000120 (16 April 2026)

[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [

DONATE ] United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments You are here:

BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments >> UI2026000120 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000120 (16 April 2026) URL: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2026/UI2026000120.html Cite as: [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000120 [ New search ] [ Printable PDF version ] [ Help ] A black background with a black square Description automatically generated with medium confidence

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL

IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI- 2026-000120 First-tier Tribunal No: EA/01562/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Decision & Reasons Issued: On 16 th of April 2026 Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE

HIRST Between George Paniatovski (NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE) Appellant and Secretary of State for the Home Department Respondent Representation : For the Appellant: In person For the Respondent: Mr Tufan, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer Heard at Field House on 8 April 2026

DECISION AND REASONS 1. The Appellant appeals from the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 16 July 2025 dismissing his appeal.

2. The appeal came before me at an error of law hearing on 8 April 2026. For the reasons set out below I have concluded that the First-tier Tribunal's decision contained a material error of law and set the decision aside. Background 3. The Appellant is a dual Georgian and Polish national. He arrived in the UK on 30 December 2022 and in August 2023 he applied for pre-settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme ('EUSS').

4. Between 3 August 2023 and 22 May 2024 the Appellant submitted four EUSS applications, of which only the third and fourth are relevant to the grounds of appeal. The third application, made on 30 April 2024, was subject to some administrative confusion surrounding the supporting evidence submitted by the Appellant.

5. Whilst the third application was pending, on 22 May 2024 the Appellant made a fourth EUSS application. The fourth application was rejected on 30 May 2024 as invalid on the basis that the Appellant had not demonstrated the application had been made within 3 months of his most recent arrival in the UK. There was no right of appeal against that decision.

6. On 27 June 2024 the Respondent refused the third application with a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal, which the Appellant exercised. At some point, the appeal (which was against the refusal of the third application) became linked in Home Office records to the refusal of the fourth application, in respect of which no right of appeal existed. The First-tier Tribunal records relating to the appeal are no longer available.

7. The First-tier Tribunal decided the appeal on the papers. The decision erroneously recorded that the appeal was against the decision of 30 May 2024 (the refusal of the fourth application). The judge dismissed the appeal on the basis that the Appellant had failed to establish that he had made a valid EUSS application.

8. Permission to appeal was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Blundell on 5 February 2026.

9. The appeal came before me at an error of law hearing. At the outset of the hearing Mr Tufan conceded that there had been an error of law in the First-tier Tribunal's decision and that the matter should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for hearing. Decision and reasons 10. I am satisfied that the First-tier Tribunal erred by proceeding on the basis that the appeal it was determining was an appeal against the 30 May 2024 decision.

11. It is unclear why the judge thought that the appeal was against the refusal of the fourth decision. As the First-tier Tribunal records are not available it may have been an administrative error on the part of the Tribunal or alternatively may have been contributed to by linking of the two applications in Home Office records. I make it clear that no criticism attaches to the First-tier Tribunal judge.

12. In any event, however, the appeal which the First-tier Tribunal was required to determine was against the decision dated 27 June 2024 refusing the third application, and not against the decision dated 30 May 2024 refusing the fourth application. No right of appeal existed in respect of the latter decision, and accordingly the First-tier Tribunal did not have jurisdiction under s85 Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to determine any appeal against it. There was a right of appeal against the decision dated 27 June 2024, which the Appellant had exercised and which the First-tier Tribunal was therefore obliged by s85 NIAA 2002 to consider and determine.

13. The error was plainly material and I therefore set the First-tier Tribunal's decision aside. As there has not yet been a substantive consideration of the Appellant's appeal the appropriate course is to remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing before a different judge. The parties were in agreement with that course of action. Notice of Decision The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of a material error of law and is set aside. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing before a different judge. L Hirst Judge of the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber 8 April 2026 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2026/UI2026000120.html