Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
DECISION PURSUANT TO RULE 40(3)(a) OF THE TRIBUNAL PROCEDURE (UPPER TRIBUNAL) RULES 2008
             Although the appellant in the proceedings before us is the Secretary of State, we refer to the parties as they were before the First-tier Tribunal ("FtT").
             The appellant, a citizen of Tunisia, appealed to the FtT against a decision to refuse his application for settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme ("EUSS"). In a decision promulgated on 24 April 2022 the FtT allowed the appeal with reference to the EU Withdrawal Agreement.
             Permission to appeal the decision of the FtT having been granted, the appeal came before us for hearing. At that hearing it was agreed between the parties that the FtT had erred in law in allowing the appeal, in the light of the decision in Celik (EU exit; marriage; human rights) [2022] UKUT 220 (IAC) (as confirmed in Celik v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 921 ).
             It was further agreed between the parties that the error of law is such as to require the decision of the FtT to be set aside and the decision to be re-made, dismissing the appeal.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.