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 Jamaica born on 24 th October 1977. She appealed against the decision of the Respondent dated 8 th May 2013 refusing her application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom under the Human Rights Act 1998 and refusing to vary her leave to remain in the United Kingdom. Her appeal was heard by Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Jones on 3 rd February 2014. The appeal was allowed on human rights issues, in a determination promulgated on 11 th February 2014.
There is a Rule 24 response which states that the Respondent�s application amounts to nothing more than a disagreement with the First-tier Judge�s assessment of the facts. The response refers to EB Kosovo [2008] UKHL 41 and goes on to state that all three of the aspects of delay mentioned in that case apply to this case.
The Presenting Officer referred to the appellant�s private life in the United Kingdom being mainly as a student and submitted that the judge has not given any reasons as to how her moral and physical integrity will be damaged if she has to return to Jamaica and submitted that when assessing proportionality the judge has not dealt properly with public interest and the necessity of immigration control in the United Kingdom, finally submitting that paragraph 47 is deficient, resulting in an error of law which goes to the materiality of his decision.
The representative referred me to the said case of EB (Kosovo), submitting that although the judge did not quote this case, he quoted the cases that preceded it. The representative referred me to Nasim and others UKUT 25 (IAC), submitting that although this is different to the current case the judge paid close attention to the nature and purpose of Article 8, and in the current case the appellant has substantial private life out with her studies.
The judge has carefully set out the history of this case and the burden and standard of proof. He has found the Appellant to be credible and her witness to be credible. He has dealt with Article 8 of EHCR in the correct way, referring to the case of Razgar [2004] UKHL 27 .
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.