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.
              On 6 November 2020 the Appellant made a fresh application for indefinite leave to remain. This application was refused in a decision dated 30 March 2021. The Respondent issued a review of the decision on 1 April 2022 and the matter went to appeal on the 5 May 2022 before Judge Scott-Baker.
              In a determination dated the 24 May 2022, the appeal was dismissed. An application for permission to appeal was made on the 17 October 2022, which asserted:
              Permission to appeal was granted by UTJ Kamara in a decision dated 24 August 2023.
              In his submissions, Mr Biggs sought to rely on two further authorities that postdated the grounds of appeal, the first being the judgment in the Court of Appeal in Ullah [2024] EWCA Civ 201 and secondly, that of the Supreme Court in TUI v Griffiths [2023] UKSC 48 .
          In her submissions, Ms Isherwood submitted there was no material error of law. She relied on the Appellant's immigration history and asserted that he had continually been putting in unsuccessful applications. There was no valid CAS in 2017. She submitted that it was incorrect that the Secretary of State had never put evidence as to the Appellant's TOEIC, relying on [17] of the decision of DUTJ Lever at AB 86:
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.