UI2022005599

                  The appellant in the appeal before me is the Secretary of State for the Home Department ("SSHD") and the respondent to this appeal is Mr Muhammad Faheem Akhtar.� However, for ease of reference, in the course of this decision I adopt the parties' status as it was before the First-tier Tribunal.� �I refer to Mr Akhtar the appellant, and the Secretary of State as the respondent. 

                  The appellant's appeal against that decision was allowed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Shamash ("the judge") for reasons that set out in a decision dated 8 August 2022.

"67.� Whilst I accept that in theory one of the other children in the UK could provide support, the practical reality is that this task has fallen on the appellant. His siblings have children of their own and they work. Caring for an elderly relative who has had a stroke is difficult for anyone and would be practically impossible to do along with caring for children. I accept Mrs Akhtar's evidence that if the appellant were removed her husband would need to go into a care home.

��� I do not know whether the appellant's father would be able to fly, but I am persuaded that if he was able to board an aeroplane, that he would feel compelled to leave the United Kingdom with the appellant rather than be admitted to a care home and it is for this reason that I find that the appellant is not only his father's main carer but that he is indispensable to his father and that the high threshold test is met in this case."

                  Permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Rimington on 9 December 2022.� She considered it arguable that the First-tier Tribunal Judge failed to apply Patel and Shah v SSHD and materially erred in law in finding that the appellant is entitled to a derivative right of residence under regulation 16(6) of The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016.