UI2022003342

             The Secretary of State appeals with the permission of Upper Tribunal Judge Stephen Smith against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Bagral. By her decision of 13 June 2022, Judge Bagral ("the judge") allowed Mr Lusha's appeal against the Secretary of State's refusal of his application for leave to remain under Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules.

             To avoid confusion, I will refer to the parties as they were before the FtT: Mr Lusha as the appellant and the Secretary of State as the respondent.

             On 21 May 2021, the appellant made an application for pre-settled status under Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules, relying on his relationship with his wife. It was refused because the appellant had married his wife after the 'specified date' (31 December 2020) and he was not eligible for leave as her spouse for that reason. The respondent also noted that the appellant had not had a documented right to reside as Ms Kirilova's durable partner at any point.

             The Secretary of State appealed to the Upper Tribunal, contending that the judge had misdirected herself as to the scope of the Withdrawal Agreement. Permission was refused at first instance but granted by Judge Stephen Smith, who noted that it was arguable that the judge's reliance on Article 18 of the Withdrawal Agreement was in error, in light of Celik [2022] UKUT 220 (IAC) .

             There was then a delay before the appeal was listed before the Upper Tribunal. In many such cases, such a delay is evidently attributable to a judge having stayed the appeal to await the decision in Celik v SSHD [2023] EWCA Civ 921 [2023] Imm AR 5 but I can find no indication on the Tribunal's systems that this case was stayed, whether for that reason or at all.