Court of Appeal rules on EUSS pre-settled status claim by EU citizen’s brother

The Court of Appeal gave judgment on 30 July 2026 on whether a Pakistani man's entry through UK border control in 2019 brought him within the Withdrawal Agreement and entitled him to pre-settled status.

The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) gave judgment on 30 July 2026 in [2026] EWCA Civ 1008. Lord Justice Lewis gave the judgment, sitting with Lady Justice Whipple and Lord Justice Jeremy Baker. The hearing was on 16 July 2026.

Background

Mr Randhawa is a Pakistani national who says he is financially dependent on his brother, an Italian national. The Italian authorities issued him a "residence card of a family member of a Union citizen". On 19 December 2019 the brothers flew to Manchester airport. The brother showed his Italian passport. Mr Randhawa showed his passport and Italian residence card. The immigration official scanned the passports and said "you can go". They have lived in Rochdale since. The brother has been granted pre-settled status.

Mr Randhawa made four applications for pre-settled status. The first three were refused. His fourth, made on 30 June 2021, was refused on 1 March 2022. The First-tier Tribunal allowed his appeal. The Secretary of State appealed, and the Upper Tribunal set that decision aside, re-made it and dismissed the appeal.

The question

Mr Randhawa argued that by letting him through border control, the immigration officer had made a decision under domestic law to allow him to enter and live here. He said that facilitated his residence within Article 10(2) of the Withdrawal Agreement, bringing him within its scope and entitling him to pre-settled status under Article 18. He also said the authorities had in effect adopted his Italian residence card as documentary evidence of that decision.

The Upper Tribunal gave five reasons for dismissing the appeal. They included that his entry and residence derived from EU law rather than national law, that any initial three-month EU right had expired before the end of the transition period, and that he had no documentary evidence of a domestic-law decision facilitating his residence.

Permission to appeal was granted on two grounds: that the Upper Tribunal wrongly held he fell outside the scope of the Withdrawal Agreement, and that it wrongly held the Agreement did not help him. The Secretary of State argued the result was right for different reasons, including that the authorities had done nothing to facilitate his residence.

The legal framework

The judgment explains that extended family members, such as brothers, did not have a right to enter and reside under EU law itself. EU law required the UK only to "facilitate" their entry and residence, and any right came from domestic law. Under regulation 7(3) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016, an extended family member is treated as a family member only if the UK authorities have already issued a family permit, registration certificate or residence card under domestic law.

Article 10(2) of the Withdrawal Agreement protects extended family members whose residence was facilitated under national legislation before the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020.

Sources

• Tajamal Hazoor Randhawa v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 1008, Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 30 July 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2026/1008