Home / Case Studies / Appeals
Proving Dependency Beyond the Money Transfers
We connected remittances with essential living costs and free housing to show how two clients’ basic needs were met.
Immigration Appeal
United Kingdom
Mr. S. and Mr. T.
2021
Executive summary
The Home Office questioned the sponsor’s position and gaps in historic transfers. Our case brought together residence documents, business activity, remittances and free accommodation. The tribunal accepted the coherent account of support and allowed both appeals.
The factual background
These historical EEA family-permit appeals concerned financial dependency on a sponsor. The refusal questioned his treaty-rights position and the pattern of money transfers.
The sponsor’s permanent residence documents, UK businesses and ownership of the clients’ home formed part of the wider evidence.
The issue at the heart of the case
A transfer-by-transfer reading did not fully explain the support the clients received. The case needed to show how essential needs were met, including the value of accommodation provided without rent.
The judge accepted that complete dependency was not required in these appeals and assessed the practical support shown by the evidence.
How the matter was approached
Address the sponsor’s position
Residence documentation and business evidence answered the concerns about his circumstances.
Connect support with basic needs
Remittances were considered against everyday expenditure.
Explain free accommodation
We emphasised the practical contribution of housing.
Present a coherent whole
Oral and documentary evidence supported the same account of dependency.
The result and its limits
Both appeals were allowed, with a whole fee award.
The determination promulgated on 8 December 2021 allowed both appeals and made a whole appeal fee award.
The dependency assessment arose under the historical EEA framework. It should not be treated as a statement of eligibility for a current family route.
What this case illustrates
Look beyond transfers
Support can include accommodation as well as cash.
Relate evidence to the legal test
The significance of support depends on the route and test in the case.
Keep the account consistent
Financial records and oral evidence should explain the same circumstances.
Client names and identifying details have been withheld. This account is based on tribunal determination reviewed. Where the result could not be verified, that limitation is stated. Historical rules may differ from those applying today. Past results do not guarantee a future outcome.
Both appeals allowed
Tribunal determination reviewed
Mr. S. and Mr. T.
2021
Immigration Appeal
ST-039
Complex Immigration Case
SD-013 · DB-026 · ST-041
Current service options are shown for related enquiries; they are not a description of the historical retainer.
A refusal deserves a closer look.
Explore the service that fits your decision, history and evidence.
Related case studies
Resolving a Sponsor’s Name Mismatch in Financial Evidence
Money transfers appeared not to identify the sponsor. Evidence of a name change and a careful financial reconciliation explained the apparent gap.
Appeal allowed
Five Family Appeals Allowed After an Unsupported Accusation
We challenged an unsupported allegation about transfer documents and connected the family’s financial support with their actual household needs.
Five appeals allowed
Facing a similar legal challenge?
Every case begins with its own evidence and history. Explore the relevant service or start an enquiry so the next step can be assessed against your circumstances.
Anonymised historical matters. Individual results vary. These summaries are information about past work, not advice on a new case.