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 appeals from the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Samina Iqbal sitting at Hatton Cross on 28 September 2016) dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State made on 16 October 2015 to refuse to grant him indefinite leave to remain on the grounds of long residence. The First-tier Tribunal did not make an anonymity direction, and I do not consider that the appellant requires anonymity for these proceedings in the Upper Tribunal.
With regard to the appellant's period of residence since 29 February 2012, they acknowledged that, under the Home Office's policy guidance, the time spent as a family member of an EEA national did not count towards 10 years' lawful residence. However, the same policy enabled case workers to consider exercising discretion to count such time spent in the UK as lawful residence, if the applicant meets all the other requirements for long residence.
By an appeal notice dated 11 June 2015, the appellant appealed against the decision of the Secretary of State to cancel his EEA residence card and to remove him from the United Kingdom.
The appellant says that this appeal was assigned the appeal number IA/22186/2015, and this is borne out by the notice of hearing dated 11 March 2016 for the hearing of appeal number IA/22185/2015 at Hatton Cross on 28 September 2016. This notice of hearing contains the reference number CEU/4869355 which corresponds to the reference number on the appeal notice of 11 June 2015.
Law Lane Solicitors settled the appellant's appeal against this refusal decision. They said that his residence card had been revoked on 3 September 2015. (There is no documentary evidence of this. It will be noted that the appellant had earlier said that his card was revoked on the day of the enforcement visit. Mr Ojukutola complained before me that the respondent had not produced in evidence a notice of decision to revoke his residence card. But it is the appellant, not the respondent, who asserts that his card has been revoked.)
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.