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 appellants are born on 25 May 1974 and 19 February 2013, and are citizens of India. They are father and son. They appealed against the decision of the respondent dated 13 June 2014 refusing them leave to remain in the United Kingdom as Tier 4 (General) Student dependents pursuant to paragraph 320 (7B) of the Immigration Rules HC 395 (as amended).
First-tier Tribunal Judge Abebrese in a determination dated 26 January 2015 dismissed the appellant�s appeal pursuant to the Immigration Rules and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Permission to appeal was granted by Designated Tribunal Judge Zuker on 8 April 2015 stating that it is arguable that the Judge wrongly placed the burden of proof on the appellants and there has been unfairness. He further noted that it is also arguably that the Judge failed adequately to consider whether there had been any dishonesty.
[8] �At paragraph 8 he stated �the appellant brings this appeal and therefore bears the burden of proof. The appellant must satisfy this burden on a balance of probabilities�.
[11] The appellant stated further that the first appellant would not have submitted his application if he had known that his CAS had been withdrawn.
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.