Ganga Budhathoki v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

A First-tier Tribunal need not rehearse every item of evidence or argument. It must, however, identify and resolve the key conflicts in the evidence and give clear, brief reasons for its conclusions. The reasons must enable the parties to understand why they have won or lost.

Where dependency under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 is disputed, the assessment is fact-specific and holistic. A tribunal must explain how it resolved material evidence bearing on genuine dependence, including apparently inconsistent evidence about financial support and the appellant’s resources.

The Secretary of State appealed against a First-tier Tribunal decision of 7 April 2014 allowing Ganga Budhathoki’s appeal. The First-tier Tribunal had found that she was dependent on her daughter-in-law, an EEA national, and therefore fell within regulation 7(1)(c) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006.

The Secretary of State contended that the First-tier Tribunal had failed to give adequate reasons for central findings about financial support, the appellant’s lack of income, and her dependency. The appeal raised whether the determination adequately resolved disputed evidence concerning the appellant’s property in Nepal and the history of financial transfers.

1. The Secretary of State’s appeal was allowed. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision was set aside and the appeal was remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh decision.

2. A tribunal is not required to set out every detail or nuance of the evidence. Such an approach is generally unnecessary, unhelpful and disproportionate. It must nevertheless identify and resolve the key evidential conflicts, and state clear and brief reasons for preferring one case to the other. This is required so that the parties can understand the outcome; transparency is the governing consideration.

3. The First-tier Tribunal gave adequate reasons for the relatively uncontroversial findings that the sponsor was an EEA national, that she was married to the appellant’s son, and that the family lived together. It did not adequately explain the material findings that financial support had been sent since 2007 and that the appellant had no other income.

4. The state, value and income-producing capacity of the appellant’s property in Nepal were controversial. The appellant had relied on the property as valuable when applying for a visit visa, but asserted that it was dilapidated in the appeal. The First-tier Tribunal did not resolve that conflict or explain why ownership of the property did not undermine its conclusion of dependency. It also did not address an apparently significant gap in the financial-transfer evidence.

5. Dependency is a factual question requiring a broad, fact-specific assessment. The First-tier Tribunal did not show that it had carried out that assessment before finding genuine dependency under regulation 7(1)(c) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): The Secretary of State’s appeal was allowed. The First-tier Tribunal decision was set aside and remitted for a fresh decision.
• First-tier Tribunal: On 7 April 2014, the appeal was allowed on the basis that the appellant fell within regulation 7(1)(c) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006.