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, a male citizen of Pakistan born on 26 November 1999, appealed to the First-tier Tribunal against a decision of the Secretary of State dated 5 February 2021 by which he was refused a residence card. The First-tier Tribunal, in a decision dated 5 November 2021, dismissed the appeal. The appellant now appeals, with permission, to the Upper Tribunal.
             At the initial hearing at Manchester on 8 July 2022, Mr McVeety, who appeared for the Secretary of State, told us that the respondent acknowledged that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal was vitiated by material error. At [21-22], the judge found:
Generally, in relation to the Appellant and Sponsor's evidence, I had grave reservation about the evidence given to me by the Appellant and Respondent in term so how they first met via Facebook. My concern centre around this issue. The Sponsor in her evidence at the hearing explained, in answer to questions from me, how she met the Appellant via Facebook. It was her contention that the Facebook platform suggested this Appellant as a friend, or as Facebook portal labels it 'People you may know'.
It is explained by Facebook in its Help Centre on its platform to how it recommends 'People you may know' and that there are four factors that feed into this algorithm. The Facebook Help Centre explains that it makes suggestions from friends you have in common, people in the same Facebook groups, people tagged in the same photo or all members of common Facebook networks e.g., a school, University, or work group. Facebook may also recommend as friends contacts that a user has uploaded from their mobile phone and email contact lists.
             In the circumstances, we set aside the decision. There will need to be a new fact-finding hearing which is better conducted in the First-tier Tribunal to which this appeal is returned for it to remake the decision following a hearing de novo .
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.