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 is a citizen of India. She appeals against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) to uphold the decision of the respondent to refuse her application for leave to remain as a Tier 4 (General) Migrant.
On 6 June 2014 First-tier Tribunal Judge Hollingworth considered that the grounds raised an arguable issue on the basis that the conclusion at paragraph 10 of the determination that the appellant had failed to answer the document verification report appeared to be unsustainable in the light of a failure to apply the proper burden and standard of proof which rested on the respondent.
Standard directions were sent out indicating that the parties would not be able to rely on new evidence not before the First-tier Tribunal unless they made the appropriate application.
On 26 June 2014 the respondent responded under Rule 24 to say that she was unable to verify that the DVR had been served in advance of the hearing and therefore was unable to refute the suggestion the procedural unfairness allegation.
An oral hearing was fixed for 1 August 2014 at 10.00am. Both parties were represented at the hearing.
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.