Entry Clearance Officer v FA

A decision-maker who substantively considers and rejects a properly made human rights claim has refused that claim, even if the decision letter asserts that Article 8 is incapable of being engaged. The resulting statutory appeal cannot be excluded by that assertion.

For adult relatives, family life under Article 8 requires additional elements of dependency beyond normal emotional ties. Real, committed or effective support may be relevant evidence, but it is not the legal test. Financial and emotional support between an adult daughter in the United Kingdom and her mother abroad did not, on the facts, establish the necessary dependency.

FA, a Palestinian woman living in Gaza, applied for entry clearance to visit the United Kingdom for private medical treatment and to stay with her adult daughter. The Entry Clearance Officer refused the visitor application, concluding that FA was not shown to be a genuine visitor and that the Article 8 representations did not amount to a human rights claim.

The First-tier Tribunal dismissed FA’s appeal for want of jurisdiction and, alternatively, found that Article 8 family life was not established. The Upper Tribunal, in proceedings bearing reference UI-2024-004205, held that a human rights claim had been refused. It remade the decision, found family life and allowed the appeal under Article 8.

The Entry Clearance Officer appealed. The central issues were whether the refusal was appealable and whether the relationship between FA and her adult daughter involved family life within Article 8.

1. Appeal allowed. The Upper Tribunal’s decision was set aside and FA’s appeal against the refusal of her human rights claim was dismissed.

2. FA had made a human rights claim within section 113 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. A refusal of such a claim is distinct from its non-determination. Reading the decision letter fairly and as a whole, the Entry Clearance Officer had considered the Article 8 representations, rejected the asserted family-life basis, and declined discretionary entry outside the Rules. That was a refusal of the human rights claim, notwithstanding the letter’s contrary assertion. The First-tier Tribunal therefore had jurisdiction under section 82(1)(b).

3. The Upper Tribunal was entitled to set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision in its entirety. Its jurisdiction error could have affected its alternative findings, and the Upper Tribunal acted within its statutory discretion in preserving no findings.

4. The Upper Tribunal applied the wrong test for family life between adult relatives. Under IA v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 1516, the question is whether there are additional elements of dependency involving more than normal emotional ties. Real, committed or effective support is relevant evidence but is not itself sufficient.

5. Applying that test to the undisputed facts, FA’s daughter’s financial assistance, frequent communication, and emotional support did not establish the necessary additional dependency. FA and her daughter had lived apart since 2006 and each had an established family life apart from the other. The refusal therefore did not interfere with family life for the purposes of Article 8(1).

6. Lewis LJ also observed, provisionally, that an Article 8 appeal does not ordinarily permit the First-tier Tribunal to decide afresh whether an applicant meets unrelated visitor-rule requirements or how an Entry Clearance Officer’s discretion should be exercised. Its task is to decide whether the decision actually made is incompatible with Article 8.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2026] EWCA Civ 1014 , allowed the Entry Clearance Officer’s appeal, set aside the Upper Tribunal’s decision, and dismissed FA’s human rights appeal.
• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): In proceedings bearing reference UI-2024-004205, held that the First-tier Tribunal had jurisdiction, set aside its decision, remade it, and allowed FA’s appeal under Article 8.
• First-tier Tribunal: Dismissed FA’s appeal for want of jurisdiction, while making alternative findings that Article 8 family life was not established.