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.
Although this is an appeal by the Secretary of State I will refer to the parties as they were before the First-tier Tribunal.
The appellants applied for entry clearance to come to the UK as family visitors to see Mr Javed Anwar, who is a British citizen. They are citizens of Pakistan. The first appellant is the sponsor�s mother; the second appellant is his wife and the third appellant is the sponsor�s son. These applications were refused on 29 th April 2013 and they appealed. Their appeals against the refusal decisions were allowed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Stanford in a determination written on the 11 th August 2014.
Permission to appeal was granted by Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Lambert on 25 th September 2014 on the basis that it was arguable that the First-tier Tribunal had erred in law as it may have been that Judge Stanford gave weight to evidence that had only come into being in May and June 2014, regarding the sponsor acquiring qualifications to practise law in Pakistan, which were therefore not relevant to the circumstances at the time of the refusal decisions in April 2013.
The matter came before me to determine whether the First-tier Tribunal had erred in law.
Mr Armstrong contended that Judge Stanford had relied upon post-decision evidence at paragraph 18 of his determination which were not relevant to the decision of the entry clearance officer as this had only come into being over a year after this decision.
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.