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 Entry Clearance Officer (ECO) appeals to the Upper Tribunal against the determination of First-tier Tribunal Judge Majid that was promulgated on 1 October 2014. Judge Majid allowed the Mr Cann�s appeal against the ECO�s decision of 5 November 2013 refusing entry clearance on the basis that he was not satisfied that Mr Prah had sole responsibility for Mr Cann�s upbringing. It would seem that Judge Majid allowed the appeal both under paragraph 297 of the immigration rules and under article 8 of the human rights convention.
Mr Prah represented his son. Because Mr Prah is not legally qualified I explained to him the nature of an appeal to the Upper Tribunal, the procedures I had to follow and advised him of my role to ensure that neither he nor his son would be disadvantaged by a lack of legal knowledge.
Mr Kandola relied on the grounds of application. He reminded me that the ECO argued that Judge Majid had completely failed to assess whether sole responsibility had been demonstrated. There was no reference to the factors that should be considered, as set out by the Tribunal in TD (Paragraph 297(i)(e): "sole responsibility") Yemen [2006] UKAIT 00049 . Mr Kandola also reminded me that the ECO argued that Judge Majid made no findings in relation to the issues of maintenance and accommodation, which had been one of the reasons for refusing entry clearance.
The issues in this appeal are: (1) whether Judge Majid considered the relevant legal provisions relating to sole responsibility, maintenance and accommodation as set out in paragraph 297 of the immigration rules, and (2) whether Judge Majid applied the law relevant to the assessment of the appellant's protected private and family life rights.
The determination is of such poor quality that I have no hesitation in finding that I can only find that Judge Majid did neither. As a result I find that the determination contains numerous legal errors which require me to set it aside and to remit it to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh hearing where the relevant law is properly considered. My reasons follow.
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.