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.
              In relation to grounds 1 and 2 which I will deal with together, the Judge in my judgment confuses the tests in relation to the Immigration Rules and the Article 8 assessment. Put shortly there is no proper assessment of Article 8 but there seems to be two assessments of whether or not the appellant meets EX.1.(b). The First-tier Tribunal Judge in heading Findings and Conclusions from paragraph 37 to 53 sets out her decision. The problem with the decision is that the judge concludes at paragraph 40, she says:
"40. Counsel also acknowledged that the appellant could not meet the Immigration Rules as he cannot meet the financial requirements. The sponsor is working but only on a part time basis and relies on Universal Credit to top up her income. I therefore also formally dismiss this element of the appellant's claim".
              The judge then goes on to consider in my judgment erroneously Appendix FM EX.1.(b) having already dismissed the appellant's claim on the Immigration Rules, and at 41 says:
"41. I now turn to consider whether or not the appellant can meet Appendix FM EX.1.(b)".
              The judge then goes on to look at EX.1.(b) in the following paragraphs and then switches at paragraph 49 to consider Article 8. At 51 the judge says:
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.