Court of Appeal dismisses appeal in EEA residence card case

Background

The Court of Appeal recently delivered its judgment in the case of Tanveer Hasan Tipu versus the Secretary of State for the Home Department, concerning the refusal of an EEA residence card application. The appellant, Tanveer Hasan Tipu, a Bangladeshi citizen, had initially arrived in the UK in 2010 on a Tier 4 student visa, which he extended until 2016 before overstaying his leave. He applied for an EEA residence card in 2019 as an extended family member of his cousin, Mr Md Salim Ahmed, a Portuguese citizen.

Initial Proceedings

The Home Office refused Mr Tipu's application in November 2020, a decision upheld by the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) in November 2022. Mr Tipu was granted permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (UT), where Judge Lindsley identified an error of law in the FTT's decision, set it aside, and ultimately dismissed the appeal in October 2023.

Key Legal Issues

The central legal issue revolved around whether Mr Tipu met the dependency requirements under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016. The regulations stipulate that an extended family member must be dependent on or a member of the household of an EEA national without more than a de minimis interruption.

Evidence and Findings

Mr Tipu's evidence indicated financial support from his cousin, Mr Salim Ahmed, during his education in Bangladesh and the UK. However, the UT found a significant gap in dependency between 2008 and 2011, a period during which Mr Tipu was no longer dependent on Mr Ahmed for essential living needs, as he had started university in Bangladesh.

Court of Appeal Judgment

The Court of Appeal, led by Lord Justice Bean, agreed with the UT's findings. The court held that the dependency required under the regulations must be continuous and that the gap in dependency between 2008 and 2011 was more than de minimis. The court also rejected the argument that tertiary education costs should always be considered essential living needs.

Legal Precedents and Interpretation

The court referred to previous cases, including Jia v Migrationsverket and Chowdhury v Secretary of State for the Home Department, to support its interpretation of dependency under the regulations. The judgment emphasized that dependency must involve material support necessary for essential living needs and that emotional familial ties are insufficient.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Tipu's appeal, affirming the UT's decision. The judgment reinforces the strict interpretation of dependency requirements under the EEA regulations, highlighting the necessity of continuous dependency without significant interruptions.

Learn More

For more information on UK immigration law, see BeCivil's guide to UK Immigration Law.

Copyright & permissions