Singh v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Factual and Procedural Background

Before 2021, relatives of a European Economic Area (EEA) national resident in the UK could apply for an EEA residence card, enabling them to live and work in the UK for five years, subject to several criteria including dependency on the EEA national to meet essential needs. The appellant, a citizen of India residing in the UK since 2012, applied for such a card multiple times but was refused by the respondent, the authority responsible for considering EEA Residence Card applications under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016. The refusal was based on insufficient evidence of dependency on the appellant's uncle, the sponsoring EEA national, prior to entering the UK.

The appellant appealed the refusal to the First Tier Tribunal (FTT), which dismissed the appeal in October 2020, finding insufficient evidence of dependency on the sponsor for essential needs such as food and accommodation. The appellant then appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT), which upheld the FTT's decision in March 2021, affirming that the appellant had not established the required dependency and that the FTT correctly applied a 'global' approach to assessing dependency.

Permission to appeal to the higher court was initially refused by the UT but later granted by the Court of Appeal on two grounds: whether education constitutes an essential need for dependency purposes, and whether a 'global' or 'singular' approach should be applied in assessing dependency.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether education constitutes an essential need for the purpose of establishing dependency on an EEA national sponsor.
2. Whether the assessment of dependency should be conducted on a 'global' basis (considering all essential needs collectively) or a 'singular' basis (considering individual essential needs separately).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The FTT failed to properly consider whether education formed part of the appellant's essential needs or whether the appellant was dependent on the sponsor in relation to education.
• The appellant contended that the support received from the uncle for education should have been recognized as demonstrating dependency.
• Initially, the appellant argued for a singular approach to assessing dependency but later agreed that the global and singular tests effectively coincide.

Respondent's Arguments

• The respondent argued that the appeal wrongly focused on the definition of 'essential needs' rather than on the actual dependency.
• The respondent maintained that the appellant did not demonstrate why education was an essential need or how he was dependent on the sponsor in relation to it.
• The respondent supported the global approach to assessing dependency, asserting it better reflects practical realities and that the UT should not have treated the choice of approach as a core issue since it was not considered by the FTT.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed whether the FTT erred in law in its assessment of the appellant's dependency on his sponsor, particularly concerning the support for education. It noted that both parties agreed education can be an essential need but the appellant had not argued before the FTT that his education constituted such a need. The FTT’s finding that the uncle’s support for education was an "additional benefit" was understood in context: the appellant’s case before the FTT focused on dependency for food and accommodation, not education.

The court found no legal error in the FTT’s approach or conclusions, emphasizing that the FTT correctly applied the law, assessed the evidence, and reached a rational conclusion on the facts. Regarding the second ground about the global versus singular approach to assessing dependency, the court agreed with the UT that the global approach was appropriate and criticized the UT’s discussion of the issue as unhelpful and unnecessary in this case.

The court reaffirmed established legal principles from CJEU and domestic case law, highlighting that dependency must be assessed on a case-by-case basis with clear factual findings, and that the competent authority must consider all relevant personal circumstances.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final decision is to DISMISS THE APPEAL.

The direct effect is that the appellant’s refusal to grant an EEA Residence Card on the grounds of insufficient proof of dependency is upheld. No new legal precedent is established; the court affirms existing principles regarding dependency assessments under the relevant EU Directive and UK regulations. The decision reinforces the requirement for clear evidence of dependency on essential needs as assessed in the country of origin at the time of application.