This First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decision examines the evidentiary standards required to establish financial dependency for an adult child applying under the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) Family Permit and offers a timely reminder that dependency is judged on a person's actual circumstances rather than their earning potential.
Background:
An adult applicant sought an EUSS Family Permit as a dependent child, aged over 21, of a European Economic Area (EAA) citizen sponsor residing within the UK. The Entry Clearance Officer (ECO) initially refused the application on the grounds that the applicant had not established the claimed familial relationship, and because she had not demonstrated dependency on the sponsor for her essential living needs.
In a review made shortly before the hearing, the respondent accepted that the sponsor was the applicant's biological father, having received the birth certificate, narrowing the inquiry to the question of dependency.
At the hearing, which proceeded in the absence of a presenting officer, the sponsor gave credible oral and written evidence explaining that he had financially maintained his wife and daughter as a single household unit even during their habitation abroad pending litigation. The appellant, who held an MA degree in English yet remained unemployed, relied on regular international money remittances. The Tribunal Judge, however, refused to admit a late supplementary bundle or screenshots of evidentiary expenditures filed only days before the hearing, determining that it was not in the interests of justice given the duplication and lack of opportunity for the respondent to review them.
Decision:
The appeal was permitted. The Tribunal held that the appellant had successfully demonstrated dependency under Appendix EU (Family Permit) of the Immigration Rules 2019, supported by the legal principles set out in SM (India) v ECO (Mumbai) [2009] and Reyes v Migrationsverket (Case C-423/12). The evidence established a longstanding, regular pattern of financial remittances and support that met the essential living and household needs of the appellant and her mother. Crucially, where payments had been remitted in her mother's name, the production of the death certificate and supporting affidavit successfully rescued the chain of custody.
The Tribunal affirmed that dependency must be assessed based on actual factual circumstances rather than a person's theoretical potential to secure employment and that, by maintaining the household the applicant lived in, the sponsor was providing material support directed toward her essential needs. A fee award followed.
Implications:
For families navigating immigration appeals under the EUSS, this case highlights the critical importance of robust, consistent documentary evidence when proving financial dependency for adult family members. Applicants must ensure that money transfer receipts, bank statements, and household expense records are clearly organised and submitted in a timely manner, as tribunals will strictly manage case files and reject any belated or duplicative filings under procedural rules. If the bills had been in a third party's name, they could have thwarted the dependency case. In this case, they did not, because the explanation was given consistently and backed by an affidavit and a death certificate.
This ruling reinforces the precept that holding a higher education qualification or a postgraduate degree does not automatically negate a finding of dependency if the individual remains genuinely reliant on a sponsor for daily living expenses due to a lack of employment. Sponsors and applicants must demonstrate a clear, continuous pattern of financial support that pre-dates the application and persists through to the decision date. Establishing that a family unit operates across borders as a single, mutually reliant ‘ecosystem’ remains a cornerstone for successfully satisfying the strict eligibility thresholds demanded by the EUSS Family Permit framework.