Secretary of State for the Home Department vs Nagdev

This case involved an appeal by the Secretary of State against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal to allow the appeals of Mr. and Mrs. Nagdev regarding the refusal of their applications for permanent residence cards under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016.

TLDR:

• Secretary of State appealed against the First-tier Tribunal's decision.
• Mr. and Mrs. Nagdev's applications for permanent residence cards were initially refused.
• The Upper Tribunal set aside the First-tier Tribunal's decision.
• The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeals of Mr. and Mrs. Nagdev.

The appellants, Mr. and Mrs. Nagdev, are Indian nationals who applied for permanent residence cards in the UK as dependent family members of their son, Kapil Nagdev, who had previously acquired Austrian citizenship but later had it revoked. Their applications were refused by the Secretary of State on the grounds of inadequate evidence of their sponsor's EEA nationality.

The First-tier Tribunal had allowed their appeals, finding that the procedural safeguards in the Citizens' Rights Directive applied. The Tribunal concluded that the Secretary of State's decision was disproportionate.

The Secretary of State appealed to the Upper Tribunal, arguing that the procedural safeguards did not apply as there was no expulsion decision. The Upper Tribunal agreed, stating that without an expulsion decision, no question of proportionality arose.

The Upper Tribunal found that the First-tier Tribunal erred in law by considering proportionality in the absence of an expulsion decision. The Upper Tribunal set aside the First-tier Tribunal's decision and substituted a decision dismissing the appeals.

The Upper Tribunal emphasized that the procedural safeguards in the Citizens' Rights Directive are only triggered by an expulsion decision, which was not present in this case.

Legal representatives: Peter Deller, Senior Presenting Officer for the appellant; Zainul Jafferji, of Counsel, instructed via the Direct Access Scheme for the respondents.

Judicial Panel: Upper Tribunal Judge Gill and Upper Tribunal Judge Blundell

Case Citation Reference: [2024] UKUT 101 (IAC)