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.
This is an appeal against the determination of First-tier Tribunal Judge Doyle promulgated on 1 st December 2014, following a hearing at Richmond on 19 th November 2014. In the determination, the judge allowed the appeal under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, of Imran Shabbir. The Respondent subsequently applied for, and was granted, permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, and thus the matter comes before me.
The Appellant is a male, a citizen of Pakistan, who was born on 17 th July 1989. He appealed against the decision of the Respondent dated 16 th June 2014, to refuse to vary his leave to remain in the UK. The Appellant�s claim is that he is a party to a genuine marriage who has not fallen foul of paragraph E-LTRP2.2 of Appendix FM. He is married to a British citizen present in the UK. But more importantly, there is a 10 year old child of his partner, from a former marriage, who is also a British citizen, and this the Secretary of State has not properly taken into account.
The marriage endures and they live together. The Sponsor, Duangjai Batten, was previously married to a British citizen. That marriage ended in divorce on 20 th May 2013. There is a 10 year old daughter from the earlier marriage. She is a British citizen. The Sponsor�s daughter lives, however, with the Sponsor�s ex-husband. The Sponsor has contact with her daughter. So does the Appellant himself.
The judge had no doubt that the Appellant had worked in the UK contrary to the conditions of his leave. The Appellant could not succeed under paragraph E-LTRP2.2. The Appellant was in the UK in breach of immigration laws (see paragraph 12(c)). However, the Respondent�s refusal letter did not give any consideration to the position of the Sponsor�s child. The judge observed that,
�The clear evidence in this case is that the Sponsor has a 10 year old daughter who lives with the Sponsor�s ex-husband. It is not disputed that the Sponsor (and the Appellant) has residential contact with the Sponsor�s 10 year old daughter each weekend� (paragraph 15(d)).
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.