IA044952021 & Others

              The appellants are closely related. Two of them are married to each other and the other three are their minor children. They are citizens of Pakistan. They appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing their appeal against a decision of the respondent refusing them a residence card confirming their right to reside in the United Kingdom as an extended family member of an EEA national.

              The point of dispute was whether they could in fact show they were dependent on the EEA national. The Secretary of State, and in due course First-tier Tribunal, decided that they could not.

              If, equally bizarrely, the judge had decided this was a case for the low "real risk standard" appropriate in protection claims, again I would be concerned although that would of course advantage the appellant's rather than the respondent.

              However, I am not prepared to assume that an experienced judge has not applied the standard of proof that applies in the huge majority of all civil proceedings throughout the jurisdiction simply by reason of his failure to mention it precisely although it would have been a very good idea if he had.

              Of particular concern to me is the nature of the gaps in the evidence and it is my view, having considered everything, that it cannot be said that the omission is material on the facts of this case.