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.
In this decision the Appellant is referred to as the ECO and the Respondent is referred to as the Claimant.
I do not know what, if any, the evidence was as to any family life that had previously been held and there was nothing before the judge concerning any former private life rights being exercised as between the Claimant and his niece or to what extent there had been length of hiatus in any such relationship.
Whilst the judge found that the Claimant was a genuine visitor and was coming for the purposes of supporting [his] niece, the judge found that he would be returning at the conclusion of his stay.
Permission to appeal that decision was given by First-tier Tribunal Judge De Haney on 23 April 2015.
From the information before the judge, the Sponsor had come to the United Kingdom it seems in 1991. She had married here in 1993 and her husband had died on 1 March 2014. The visa application was made on 8 July 2014 and the decision was, as I have indicated, on 21 July 2014. The delay between his death and the application was explained by the turmoil and upset caused by the Sponsor's husband's death and the making of consequential arrangements.
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.