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 sponsor�s appeal to the FtT was determined as a paper exercise. The Judge upheld the Appellant�s decision on the basis of non-compliance with the financial requirement, stating in [8]:
� Although the Appellant satisfied all of the other requirements of Appendix FM it follows that the appeal must be dismissed under the Immigration Rules. �
The Judge then turned to consider the appeal under Article 8 ECHR. His conclusion was, in terms, that the impugned decision represented a disproportionate interference with the right to respect for family life enjoyed by the Respondent and the sponsor, his spouse. The essence of the Judge�s reasoning was that the extent of the failure to satisfy the financial requirement of the Rules was of narrow dimensions.
Thus I ruled that the decision of the FtT be set aside, to be remade in this forum.
Accordingly, I remake the first instance decision by allowing the appeal under Article 8 ECHR. It follows that the decision of the ECO will have to be remade in terms reflecting this judgment, subject to any admissible novel facts or considerations.
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.