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.
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber)����������������������������������� Appeal Number: ia/01935/2013
The letter further set out that the application dated 28 th April was made after the leave had expired and thus he had no leave to enter at the time and thus there was also no right of appeal.
It is common ground between the parties that the Respondent failed to comply with that direction made by the First-tier Tribunal in January 2013.
The matter came before the Tribunal on 9 th April and it considered as a preliminary issue whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, noting that the application for leave to remain was made on 28 th April after his leave had expired on 21 st April.� The judge however considered that there were arguments capable of being advanced on behalf of the Appellant in the light of the decision of Basnet (already referred to and cited herein).
It is recorded at paragraph 4 that Mr Khan (who was then the legal representative) conceded that on instructions the first application had been accompanied by a bank authorisation to pay a sum that was insufficient to the relevant fee.� Thus the judge acting on that found that the application was invalid and then distinguished the case from that of Basnet (see paragraph 5).
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.