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.
I have considered whether any parties require the protection of an anonymity direction. No anonymity direction was made previously in respect of this Appellant. Having considered all the circumstances and evidence I do not deem it necessary to make an anonymity direction.
This is an appeal by the Appellant against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Alis promulgated on 11 February 2014 which dismissed the Appellant�s appeal on all grounds.
On 28 March 2013 the Appellant applied for leave to remain in the United Kingdom outside the Immigration Rules on the basis that removal would breach his right to family and private life under Article 8 ECHR.
On 7 May 2013 the Secretary of State refused the Appellant�s application and at the same time issued directions for his removal under s 47 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. The refusal letter considered the application by reference to Appendix FM and paragraph 276ADE of the Rules and found that the Appellant could not meet the requirements of either. The letter also found that the Appellant could not meet the requirements of EX.1.
Grounds of appeal were lodged and on 31 March 2014 Upper Tribunal Judge Macleman gave permission to appeal.
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.