This case concerned a Nigerian national who made an application for an EEA family permit to come to the UK to join his sponsor (his sister-in-law) and his brother. His application for entry clearance was refused by the Entry Clearance Officer (ECO) and was appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT). At the FTT, the judge allowed the appeal. Not satisfied with this conclusion, the ECO appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT) and the case was heard before Judge Lane. The only relevant issue in the appeal was whether the appellant was dependent upon the EEA sponsor.
It was argued by counsel for the ECO that Mr. Jemirifo was not dependent on the sponsor because her and her husband (Mr. Jemirifo’s brother) both contributed to a joint account and the sponsor’s contributions to that account were supported by little evidence. The sponsor ran her own business but did not have significant evidence to demonstrate her income from this business. It was argued that this lack of evidence was not enough to show that Mr. Jemirifo was dependent on the sponsor herself.
Judge Lane highlighted that, whilst there was a lack of evidence from the sponsor, payments in dependency matters such as this could be made from a joint account and the sponsor’s contributions to that joint account did not need to make up the majority. As a result, as Judge Lane accepted that equality of contributions to the joint account was not necessary, he stated that this meant that detailed evidence of such contributions was also not necessary.
Judge Lane also addressed two further points of interest in the case. Firstly, he clarified that an applicant under these provisions could be dependent on an EEA national or be a member of the EEA national’s household, not that they could be dependent on an EEA national or a member of the EEA national’s household. They must, in all cases be dependent on an EEA national. Secondly, he set out that the fact that the sponsor and her husband were supporting six individuals already was not enough, on the facts, to allow the appeal to be dismissed.
The significance of this decision is twofold. Firstly, it reinforces the position that the person upon whom an applicant is dependent can support them from a joint account, contributed to by others and, secondly, that dependency must still be on the EEA national themselves. These points, however, are not mutually exclusive and dependency on the EEA national can still be established if the support comes from a joint account held by the EEA national family member and others. This seems to permit a certain degree of flexibility for applicants in similar situations.
By: Cameron Dyer