Case Study: EU Settlement Scheme Refusal Successfully Overturned Through Administrative Review

Background

Our client had been living and working in the UK since 2015, building a stable career in the healthcare sector as a medical assistant. Over a period of nine years, he made consistent National Insurance contributions and remained economically active within the UK.

He was initially granted pre-settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme. However, when he later applied for settled status, his application was refused by the Home Office on the basis that he had not demonstrated continuous qualifying residence.

The Refusal

The Home Office concluded that:

There was insufficient evidence to confirm five years of continuous residence
Certain periods of UK presence, particularly before December 2020, were not adequately evidenced
Some absences from the UK exceeded the permitted limits and were not sufficiently justified at the time of the decision

As a result, the application for settled status was refused.

Our Approach

We carefully reviewed the refusal decision and identified that the assessment did not fully take into account both the available evidence and the applicable legal provisions under Appendix EU.

An Administrative Review was submitted, supported by a structured body of evidence addressing each of the Home Office’s concerns.

Key Legal and Evidential Arguments

Continuous Residence

We provided detailed documentation demonstrating the client’s ongoing residence in the UK, including employment records, payslips, and bank statements confirming regular income over several years.

Travel records were also submitted to clarify periods of presence in the UK that had not been properly considered in the original decision.

Justified Absences Under Appendix EU

A central aspect of the case was the client’s absence from the UK due to compelling personal circumstances.

The client had returned to his home country to care for his father, who suffered from serious chronic health conditions over a prolonged period. He was the sole carer, responsible for daily support, medical care, and essential needs.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, these circumstances were further compounded by travel restrictions, medical vulnerability, and delays in treatment.

We demonstrated that these absences fell within the definition of an “important reason” under Appendix EU, which allows for extended absences in cases of serious illness and pandemic-related disruption.

Economic Activity and Integration

The evidence clearly showed that the client:

Maintained continuous employment in the UK
Made consistent tax and National Insurance contributions
Was fully integrated into UK society
Had a lawful immigration history and no adverse factors

Supporting Evidence

The Administrative Review was supported by a comprehensive set of documents, including:

Employment records and payslips covering multiple years
Bank statements confirming salary payments
Travel records demonstrating UK residence
Medical documentation confirming the father’s condition
A death certificate
Witness evidence confirming the client’s role as sole carer

Outcome

Following review, the Home Office concluded that the original refusal decision was incorrect.

The additional evidence provided clarified both the client’s continuous residence and the justified nature of his absences.

As a result:

The Administrative Review was allowed
The client was granted Settled Status under the EU Settlement Scheme

Current Position

The client now holds indefinite leave to remain in the UK, with:

A permanent right to live and work in the UK
Full access to healthcare and public services (subject to eligibility criteria)
The ability to sponsor eligible family members
The option to apply for British citizenship, subject to meeting the relevant requirements

Key Takeaway

This case highlights that a refusal under the EU Settlement Scheme is not always final. Where decisions are based on incomplete evidence or a misinterpretation of the rules, an Administrative Review can provide a structured opportunity to correct the outcome.

A careful analysis of both the legal framework and the factual circumstances is essential in presenting a strong and effective challenge.