Upper Tribunal reaffirms Tanveer Ahmed and sets out signs of fraudulent appeals

The Upper Tribunal has given guidance on patterns that may indicate fraudulent immigration applications, on late evidence and adjournments, and on how tribunals should treat documents, affecting appellants and those who represent them.

Background

In Hoxha & Others [2026] UKUT 378 (IAC), issued on 21 August 2026, the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) gave guidance in five linked appeals. They were among ten listed together because they raised similar issues. The panel was Judge Feeney, President of the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), with Upper Tribunal Judges Blum and Mandalia. The appellants did not appear or send a representative.

The appeals concerned applications under the EU Settlement Scheme. The Upper Tribunal described a pattern in which an application is made with minimal evidence, requests for more evidence or interview invitations go unanswered, and the application is refused. The appellant then appeals and asks for a decision on the papers. Shortly before the appeal is decided, a bundle is filed containing the missing evidence, such as marriage certificates and residence cards. The Home Office may never have been sent it, or may have received it late. The tribunal said an appeal may then be allowed because the judge does not know the Home Office has had no chance to check the documents.

The question

How should tribunals treat documents and late evidence, given suspected fraud and the growing use of artificial intelligence to generate documents?

The decision

The Upper Tribunal reaffirmed the approach in Tanveer Ahmed (2002). It held that the approach applies to any document provided in any proceedings, including interim hearings and bail hearings. It applies equally in non-protection and human rights appeals. The overarching question is whether a document can be regarded as reliable, looking at all the evidence in the round.

It also held that:

• The party relying on a document must show that a copy was given to the other side in good time and that they have permission to rely on it.
• Evidence filed in breach of directions needs an application for permission. Judges may refuse permission, reduce the weight given, or adjourn.
• If evidence is uploaded after the Home Office review and service cannot be established, it may be procedurally unfair to take it into account.
• Judges should be cautious about adjournments, applying the fairness test in Nwaigwe. Repeated adjournment requests will ordinarily need a good reason.
• A refusal for failing to provide documents without explanation can reasonably be treated as a challenge to credibility.
• A judge may ask why an appellant chose a paper decision where credibility is in issue or documents contain anomalies.

The reasoning

The tribunal said AI can generate documents that are hard to tell from genuine ones, and called this a potential existential threat to the integrity of the appeal system. It said suspected AI use in drafting is not itself an indication of fraud, and that proper use of AI tools by appellants without lawyers can be of real help. It also noted that representatives who see red flags bearing the hallmarks of fraud must make enquiries before continuing to act.

Sources

• Hoxha & Others (Tanveer Ahmed; fraudulent applications; procedure) [2026] UKUT 378 (IAC), Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), 21 August 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukut/iac/2026/378