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 the re-making decision in the appellant's appeal against the respondent's refusal of her human rights claim. The claim was made through further representations dated 25 September 2017 and the refusal thereof is dated 9 November 2020.
      The appellant appealed against the respondent's refusal of her human rights claim. That appeal was dismissed by the First-tier Tribunal in a decision promulgated on 7 October 2021. The appellant challenged that decision and, by a decision promulgated on 31 March 2022, a panel of the Upper Tribunal (Upper Tribunal Judge Blum and Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Grimes) concluded that the judge had materially erred in law and that his decision should be set aside.
      The appeal was then listed before me on 5 May 2023. Unfortunately, the appellant's representatives had failed to provide any additional evidence and I was not satisfied that I had sufficient information on which to make a fair and comprehensive re-making decision. The hearing was adjourned with directions.
      At the outset of the resumed hearing on 25 March 2024 I sought to clarify and confirm the issues with which I was now concerned in this appeal. Both representatives helpfully obliged.
      The sole overarching issue for me to determine is whether the appellant's removal from the United Kingdom would breach her Article 8 rights, both in relation to private and family life.
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.