UI2024001079

             The appellant appeals against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Beg ('the Judge') dismissing his appeal against the respondent's refusal to grant him leave to remain under the EUSS.

             Before us, it was confirmed that the appellant relied on the sole ground set out in paragraph 7(g) of his grounds: that the Judge had failed to consider that he had made an application on 17 December 2020 under the EEA Regulations for a residence card as a family member of an EU citizen exercising Treaty rights in the United Kingdom.

             Ms Stein accepted that service of the EEA residence card decision on the appellant's representative constituted service on the appellant. Ms Stein also confirmed that she was not raising any arguments under the Withdrawal Agreement.

             Mr Mullen's argument in short was that the Judge, even if in error in overlooking the appellant's application of 17 December 2020, would inevitably have come to the same conclusion. The application was unsuccessful; therefore, the appellant did not meet the relevant definition in Annex 1 and his residence was not being facilitated by the United Kingdom. Consequently, he was not entitled to status under the EUSS.

             On 19 January 2024, 3 days before the hearing, the respondent uploaded to CCD a letter dated 26 January 2021 rejecting the appellant's residence card application on the grounds that he had not submitted his passport or his sponsor's passport or valid national identity card with the application.