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.
                  Permission to appeal was granted by First-tier Tribunal Judge Adio on 20 April 2022 against the decision to dismiss the Appellant's Article 8 ECHR appeal made by First-tier Tribunal Judge Dean in a decision and reasons promulgated on 9 February 2022.
                  Judge Dean found that the Respondent had discharged the legal burden of proving that the Appellant had cheated in his TOEIC test. Judge Dean also found that the Appellant had not shown that he had family life in the United Kingdom with his claimed partner and or as the father of the child which she was expecting. There were no significant obstacles to the Appellant's reintegration in Pakistan. The Appellant's private life interests were outweighed by the public interest in Immigration Rules.
The Respondent filed a rule 24 notice dated 11 May 2023, opposing the Appellant's appeal. It was submitted that the judge had reached properly reasoned and sustainable findings on the evidence, which had been fully considered. The correct approach had been taken to the shifting burden of proof applicable to the fraud allegation. The judge's findings as to the absence of family life had been open to him. There had been no corroboration. There was no error of law and the determination should be upheld.
                  Mr Raza for the Appellant applied for leave to amend the grounds of appeal to include an assertion that the judge had failed to consider Home Office guidance published on 18 November 2020 as to the discretionary nature of refusals under paragraph S-LTR 4.2 of Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules. The application was prefigured in his skeleton argument and was not opposed by Ms Cunha. In those circumstances, we indicated that we were content to hear argument on this point.
              The correct approach in long residence cases was that a curtailment of leave to remain premised on ETS fraud would be overlooked if shown to have been mistakenly applied by the Respondent. If the Appellant succeeded it would be for the Respondent to decide the leave to remain to be granted, as in all Article 8 ECHR appeals.
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.