UI2022003942

             For ease of reference in this decision I refer below to the appellant as Mr Souici and to the respondent as SSHD.

             Although representatives were on the record for Mr Souici, he clarified to us that he no longer had representatives. We noted that he did not have legal representation at the hearing before Upper Tribunal Judge Lane on 2 September 2024 when the appeal was adjourned.

             Mr Souici had sent to the Upper Tribunal recent letters from his brother, his sister-in-law and two nieces supporting him and referring to their being a close-knit family and the role he and Mrs Djebbar played in their lives. We showed these letters to Ms Cunha who had not received a copy, and said that we were raising with her whether the SSHD would consent to the new matter of Mr Souici's family and private life in the UK being raised.

             Ms Cunha refused consent and explained to Mr Souici and Mrs Djebbar that the application he had made which was under appeal was for status under the EU Settlement Scheme set up specifically to preserve the rights of EU nationals and their family members after Brexit. She explained that it was fairer to all concerned to require family and private life to be raised by way of a separate application to the Home Office when all relevant matters could be raised and properly considered.

             We explained to Mr Souici and Mrs Djebbar that we could only consider whether Mr Souici succeeded under the EU Settlement Scheme.