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 appealed to the First-Tier Tribunal (the � FtT �). By its determination promulgated on 23 rd August 2013, the FtT dismissed the appeal under both the Immigration Rules and Article 8 ECHR. The Appellant now appeals, with permission, to the Upper Tribunal.
Permission to appeal was sought on six grounds. It is clear appears to me that four of these - grounds 1, 2, 4 and 5 - amount to little more than a disagreement with the Judge�s assessment and weighing of the evidence. The remaining two grounds - numbers 3 and 6 - are, however, of a different genre . The 3 rd ground states:
� The procedural error consisted of the legal representative not being afforded the opportunity to read or to question the last minute submission of the appeal document of 2008 of which the IJ somehow had the prior notice as it was in her hands before we were finally allowed to enter the Court room. �
� And because of the events that had preceded the hearing as well as hostile and toxic atmosphere that developed during the hearing, it was quite clear that IJ Gladstone will [sic] refuse the appeal. Therefore, she went through the determination with a forensic tooth comb in order to justify the outcome. Were the IJ to be [sic] in a calm and relaxed mood, she may have come to a different decision �
It is requested that the permission to appeal be allowed by calling the witness to prove or otherwise the misconduct of the Learned Immigration Judge. �
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.