Summary
An applicant seeking recognition as an extended family member under regulation 8(2) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 must have a relevant connection with the EEA sponsor both in the country of origin and in the United Kingdom. The connection may be dependency or membership of the sponsor’s household, and may change between those stages. It must, however, remain continuous, save for a de minimis interruption.
Household membership requires physical and relational proximity, a common household headed by the sponsor, and a genuine assumption of responsibility. Whether a person who lives apart has left that household is a fact-sensitive question. Relevant matters include the duration and purpose of separation, continuing links and support, any separate household, and the person’s immigration status.
Factual background
The appellants, citizens of Pakistan, appealed against the First-tier Tribunal’s dismissal of their appeals from the Secretary of State’s refusal to issue residence cards under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016.
They claimed to be family members, or alternatively extended family members, of the first appellant’s Italian aunt. The First-tier Tribunal found that the first two appellants had been dependent on, and members of, the sponsor’s household in Pakistan. It found that they had ceased to be financially dependent after arriving in the United Kingdom before the sponsor, although they later lived with her again after her arrival.
The principal issue was whether their household membership had continued during that intervening period, for the purposes of regulation 8(2)(b)(ii).
Held
Appeal dismissed. The First-tier Tribunal made no material error of law and its decision dismissing the residence-card appeals stood.
Regulation 8(2)(b)(ii) requires an extended family member to establish a relevant connection with the EEA sponsor in the country of origin and in the United Kingdom. The connection may be dependency or household membership, and may change between those stages. There may be no break in either form of connection, other than one properly characterised as de minimis.
Membership of an EEA national’s household requires sufficient physical and relational proximity. The sponsor must genuinely head the household; its members live together as a unit and share a sense of belonging. A genuine assumption of responsibility by the sponsor is relevant, as are the beginning and duration of household membership or dependency.
An applicant may in principle remain a member of the sponsor’s household after arriving in the United Kingdom before the sponsor. Whether a period of separate residence amounts to leaving the household is a question of fact and degree. Material factors include the duration of absence, links retained with the household, intention to resume household life, formation of a distinct household elsewhere, continuing responsibility and financial support, and the immigration capacity in which the applicant entered the United Kingdom.
On the First-tier Tribunal’s findings, the appellants’ financial dependence ended when they left Pakistan. They entered the United Kingdom in their own capacities, formed an autonomous family unit, experienced significant life events apart from the sponsor, and showed no continuing assumption of responsibility by her. Their later resumption of household membership after the sponsor arrived could not cure the earlier, more than de minimis, break.
The Tribunal also refused fresh evidence because it could have been obtained with reasonable diligence for the First-tier Tribunal hearing. The challenge to the sponsor’s self-employment finding in any event could not affect the outcome.
The court’s approach to earlier authorities
Available to signed-in members.
Appellate history
- Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): dismissed the appeal and held that the First-tier Tribunal decision involved no material error of law.
- First-tier Tribunal: dismissed the appellants’ appeals against the Secretary of State’s refusal, dated 2 September 2020, of residence cards under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016.
Key cases cited
10 authorities cited.
- Chowdhury v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWCA Civ 1220
- Aladeselu & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 144
- KG (Sri Lanka) & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 13
- Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489
- Ali Abdulrasul Hussein v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKUT 250 (IAC)
- Mosnu Ahmed Chowdhury v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKUT 188 (IAC)
- DV v HMRC [2017] UKUT 155 (AAC)
- Sheikar Amith Roy Dauhoo v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKUT 79 (IAC)
- SSWP v JS (IS) [2010] UKUT 240 (AAC)
- Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rahman Case C-83/11
Sign in to see how the court treated each authority. A free account is enough.
Cases citing this case
2 later cases · 2 positive
Most senior citing decisions:
- Tanveer Hasan Tipu v Secretary of State for The Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 215 applied
- HJ v First-Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) [2025] UKUT 271 (AAC) followed
Sign in for the full treatment table. A free account is enough.