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 is the Appellant's appeal against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Traynor promulgated on 7 th July 2017 in which decision he dismissed the Appellant's appeal against the Respondent's decision dated 15 th January 2016 to refuse her claim on human rights grounds.
Within the decision of Judge Traynor he noted that at the start of the appeal hearing Mr Reynolds on behalf of the Appellant acknowledged that she could not succeed in an application either under Appendix FM family life or paragraph 276ADE, and was asking for the case to be considered outside of the rules on Article 8 grounds.
At the appeal hearing before the Upper Tribunal the Appellant had been represented by Mr Sowerby of Counsel and the Respondent being represented by Ms Willocks-Briscoe, a Senior Home Office Presenting Officer.
Within the Rule 24 reply dated 3 rd October 2017 it is argued by the Secretary of State that the judge directed himself appropriately and did refer to Section 117B in paragraph 52 of the decision and addressed the position of the children from paragraph 50 to 54.
I have also been assisted this morning by the helpful submissions by Mr Sowerby of Counsel and by Ms Willocks-Briscoe on behalf of the Secretary of State.
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.