UI2023003396

       The appellant is a citizen of Pakistan born on 20 October 1980. She appeals, with permission, against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing her appeal against the respondent's decision to refuse her application for an EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) Family Permit as the family member of a relevant EEA citizen.

       The appellant sought permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on the grounds that there had been procedural impropriety arising from the judge's failure to apply the Surendran guidelines and that the judge had failed to asked the correct question and apply the correct burden of proof.

       Permission was granted in the First-tier Tribunal. The respondent did not produce a rule 24 response. The matter then came before me for a hearing and both parties made submissions.

       Mr Tan submitted that the judge's decision was an agreement with the conclusion of the ECO, that the appellant had failed to show that she was financially dependent upon the sponsor. There was no allegation of fraud by the ECO and neither had the judge made any such finding. The judge did not go beyond the case put by the ECO and found that the source of the funding sent by the sponsor to the appellant was unclear, so that the appellant had not discharged the burden of proof.

       Mr Holmes, in response, reiterated the points already made and submitted that the judge's reasoning was a new issue which did not form part of the refusal decision. The source of the funds paid to the sponsor was irrelevant as the sponsor was entitled to receive funds from any source he could. If the judge was suggesting that the source of funds was a relevant issue, then that was a suggestion of abuse.