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.
This an appeal by the Secretary of State against the determination of First-tier Tribunal Judge Lal issued on 27 th November 2014 allowing, apparently under the Immigration Rules and Article 8 ECHR, the appeal of the Appellant against the decision of the Respondent made on 7 th April 2014 to refuse entry clearance to visit her brother in the UK. The Respondent in this case is the Entry Clearance Officer Abu Dhabi.
Judge Lal acknowledged that the Appellant was only entitled to a limited right of appeal under the Human Rights Act and/or the Race Relations Act due to changes made in the law with effect from 25 th June 2013. He then however went on to consider the appeal in terms of paragraph 41 of the Immigration Rules.
The Entry Clearance Officer (ECO) had refused the application because he was not satisfied that the Appellant was supported by her husband as claimed. She had not demonstrated the source of funds in her husband�s bank account. He was not satisfied that she intended to leave the UK at the end of her visit. Judge Lal, having considered the evidence before him found that the Appellant had shown that she intended to leave the UK at the end of her visit and that indeed all the requirements of paragraph 41 were met. He allowed the appeal under the Immigration Rules.
He then went on to consider Article 8, taking into account that the Appellant had acted as a mother figure to the Sponsor. He referred to �the unique set of circumstances� in the case and allowed the appeal under Article 8.
I find that Judge Lal erred in law firstly in allowing the appeal under paragraph 41 of the Immigration Rules and secondly in allowing it under Article 8 ECHR. I do accept that when considering Article 8 in an appeal against the refusal of a visit visa the ability of the Appellant to meet the requirements of paragraph 41 may be a valid consideration but Judge Lal actually considered the evidence and the documentation before him and effectively overturned the decision of the Entry Clearance Officer. He had no jurisdiction to do that.
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.