Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The Appellant, who was born on [ ] 1935 and who is now 81 years old, is a citizen of Syria. On 1 June 2014 she applied to visit her daughter in the United Kingdom. Her daughter is a British citizen. The Appellant's application was refused on 14 June 2014. The Entry Clearance Officer took into account the fact that there had been explosions in her local area in Damascus and that she had transferred some savings to the United Kingdom. Therefore, he concluded that she was not a genuine visitor and did not intend to return at the end of her proposed visit.
The Appellant appealed on 22 July 2014 and said that she had always left the United Kingdom at the end of her visits and that, when she came to visit the United Kingdom in 2012, Syria was also very politically volatile. She explained that she transferred some of her savings to the United Kingdom because the Syrian lira was losing value day by day and she was seeking to protect her savings. In addition, she asserted that refusing to allow her to visit her daughter and her family breached Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
On 18 November 2014 the Entry Clearance Manager confirmed the decision and asserted that the situation in Syria had significantly changed for the worst since 2012 in Syria and speculated that money could have been transferred to Lebanon or Jordan. He also said that he did not understand the basis on which she asserted her Article 8 rights would be breached.
Her appeal came before First-tier Tribunal Judge Hanbury on 10 March 2015 but unfortunately neither the judge nor counsel for the Respondent addressed the fact that appeal rights for visitors had changed as section 88A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 had been amended by section 52 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 on 25 June 2013 so that the Appellant was only entitled to appeal on human rights and/or racial discrimination grounds.
The de novo hearing was initially set down for 13 June 2016 but the Appellant did not receive notice of the hearing and did not attend. There was also no interpreter present. Therefore, I adjourned the hearing until today.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.