EA000502020

The Appellant challenges the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Plumptre promulgated on 5 February 2021 ("the Decision"). By the Decision, the Judge dismissed the Appellant's appeal against the Respondent's decision dated 16 December 2019 refusing to give him a permanent residence card as the former family member (spouse) of an EEA (French) national, Ms Simone Gabriel. The Respondent's decision was made under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 ("the EEA Regulations").

By a decision sent on 11 June 2021, I adjourned the error of law hearing in this appeal. My adjournment decision is appended hereto for ease of reference. That decision sets out the factual and procedural background to the appeal and I do not repeat it.

As I pointed out at [13] of my decision, although there was no evidence, the factual position could be readily clarified by the making of an Amos direction. If that evidence did not assist the Appellant, then that would be the end of his argument and either Judge Plumptre would not have made an error in the Decision by failing to consider the issue or, at best, any error would not be material as the argument would be unsupported in fact.

Mr Jaufurally very fairly conceded having seen the statement from HMRC that he could not sustain the argument previously put forward and, based on what I said at [13] of my adjournment decision, the outcome was inevitable. He could no longer submit that there was an error of law in the Decision. Even if Judge Plumptre had failed to note the possibility of the Appellant claiming permanent residence, any error in that regard could not be material as the outcome on the evidence now would inevitably be the same.

For the foregoing reasons including the concession made on the Appellant's behalf, I am satisfied that there is no error of law in the Decision. Judge Plumptre in fact considered whether there was sufficient evidence of Ms Gabriel working in the period 2008 to 2013. Although she did not do so in the context of an argument that the Appellant would be entitled to permanent residence, she was entitled to find that the case was not made out for that period. As it has since transpired, she was not only entitled to reach that finding but right to do so.