UI2022002847 & UI2022002846

DECIDED WITHOUT A HEARING AND WITHOUT PROVIDING SUBSTANTIVE REASONS PURSUANT TO RULES 34 AND 40 OF THE TRIBUNAL PROCEDURE (UPPER TRIBUNAL) RULES 2008

      This error of law decision is brief and does not contain substantive reasons. It is agreed between the parties that the First-tier Tribunal made material errors of law when dismissing the appellants' appeals against the respondent's refusal of their applications made under Appendix EU(FP). In addition, the parties have consented that the error of law issue be determined without a hearing. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that rules 34 and 40(3) of the 2008 Rules are to be applied.

      By a rule 24 response dated 16 February 2023, the respondent confirmed that she did not oppose the appellants' appeals and suggested that the First-tier Tribunal's decision could be set aside and the appeals remitted for a re-hearing.

      On reviewing the case, I directed the appellants to confirm whether they consented to their appeals being decided about the hearing and whether they also agreed to the course of action proposed in the rule 24 response. By an email dated 29 August 2023, the appellants' representatives confirmed their agreement to both matters.

      I am satisfied that the appellants did in fact provide documentary evidence in addition to the DNA report. This evidence was relevant to the daughter's status and the nationality of the named sponsor (who appears to be a Dutch citizen). I am satisfied that, as set out in the grounds of appeal, the judge either overlooked this evidence or failed to adequately address it in her decision.