EA007252018

Permission to appeal was granted by a First-tier Tribunal Judge on 12 th July 2018. In a rule 24 response from the Secretary of State, dated 4 th September 2018, the appeal was opposed. The respondent submitted that the judge directed herself appropriately in relation to the test for showing dependency and the conclusion reached that he was not dependent on his EEA national brother was open to her in the light of evidence showing that the appellant earned on average £800 per month. Indeed, it would have been irrational to conclude otherwise.

The appellant appeared in person. He was accompanied by his brother and Mr Ahmed Diri was present as the Tribunal's interpreter. I was satisfied that the appellant and Mr Diri understood each other in Somali. I explained Mr Avery's role as the Secretary of State's representative.

I asked the appellant whether he wished to say more or add to the written grounds. He replied that the rule 24 response was not accurate. It was at the end of 2013 that he moved out of his brother's house. His employment at the time of the Tribunal hearing was not full-time. He spent the past few years working part-time. He now lived again with his brother but at the time of the appeal hearing his brother's friend let him occupy a room and his brother paid the appellant's rent.

The appellant said that his income was not enough to meet his needs as he has to pay fees, public transport and so on. He has a girlfriend and they have a son together. His brother has supported him continuously. The appellant's earnings of £800 per month were not enough and he could not pay the rent himself. He lived again with his brother because his job had been terminated. At the time of the judge's decision, he did not have sufficient income and could not pay for accommodation, which was why his brother supported him financially. His brother would put money into his bank account.

The appellant said that his monthly income of £800 at the time was not enough. The house was provided by his brother, who also paid the rent. Without his brother's support he would be unable to live. There was proof in his bank account. The appellant had no money left over and that was why his brother supported him.