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.
For the Respondents: Ms N Hashimi, Counsel instructed by Law Direct Immigration Advisors
Although this decision does touch on the welfare of minors their circumstances are not such that I see any need for any order restraining publication and I make no order in this case.
The respondents to this appeal, hereinafter �the claimants� are members of one family and are citizens of Sri Lanka. The first and second claimants are married to each other and the third and fourth claimants are their daughters. The third claimant was born in 1997 and the fourth claimant was born in 2002. They entered the United Kingdom lawfully on 9 October 2006 and have remained, with permission, since then.
On 2 August 2012 the first claimant applied for leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) Migrant under the points-based system and for a biometric residence permit. The other three claimants made similar applications as dependants of the first claimant.
The application of the First Claimant was refused with reference to paragraph 322(1A) of HC 395. This provides that applications for leave to remain or variation of leave to enter or remain are to be refused:
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.