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 an appeal against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Andonian promulgated on 5 September 2014 allowing Mr Daoud�s appeal against the decision of the Entry Clearance Officer (�ECO�) dated 6 August 2013 to refuse to grant entry clearance as a family visitor.
Although before me the ECO is the appellant and Mr Daoud the respondent, for the sake of consistency with the proceedings before the First-tier Tribunal I shall hereafter refer to Mr Daoud as the Appellant and the ECO as the Respondent.
The Notice of Immigration Decision specified that the Appellant�s right of appeal was limited to the grounds referred to in section 84(1)(c) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
The First-tier Tribunal Judge, having heard evidence from the sponsor, allowed the Appellant�s appeal on Article 8 grounds for reasons set out in his determination. (See further below.)
The Respondent sought permission to appeal which was granted (along with an extension of time) by First-tier Tribunal Judge Grant-Hutchison on 17 August 2014 on the basis that � it is arguable that the Judge made a material misdirection of the law in its [sic.] approach to Article 8 by failing to identify why the Appellant�s circumstances amounted to exceptional circumstances that warrant a grant of leave outside the Immigration Rules when he only seeks to visit his family for a few weeks before he returns to his studies �.
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.