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.
He appealed against the respondent's decision to refuse him leave to enter dated 17 March 2015.
The appeal was heard by Judge Lingam (the judge) who in a decision promulgated on 28 August 2015, allowed the appeal under the Immigration Rules. That was because she found the respondent had failed to show that the appellant had relied upon a false document to procure his last leave to enter and that even if so, there was no causal link between the alleged false document and the leave issued following the appellant's 2014 leave application.
The grounds claimed a material misdirection of law and failure to provide inadequate or any reasons on a material point :
At [20] the judge, relying upon an unreported decision of the Upper Tribunal concluded that the application of paragraph 321A was limited to instances where deception was deployed in the application granting the current leave. It was said that since the appellant did not rely upon the ETS qualification for his current period of leave, the respondent erred in cancelling leave under paragraph 321A.
In her assessment at [20] the judge had failed to consider the respondent's assertion that the appellant did not disclose material facts (that is, his historic deception) in the application the subject of the appeal, the Immigration Officer having sought clarification regarding the validity of the appellant's ETS qualification.
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.