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 Appellant appeals, with permission, against the decision (the Decision) of the First-Tier Tribunal Judge (the FTT Judge) dated 20 November 2023 allowing the Respondent's appeal.
        The Respondent is a national of Malaysia, born on 10 August 1942. Her husband passed away in April 2022 and she lives alone. The Respondent's son lives in Singapore but her application to join him there was unsuccessful. The Respondent has a number of health problems summarised at para 9 of the Decision. She applied for entry clearance as the adult dependent relative of her daughter, Dr Koh, in June 2023. That application was refused on 31 July 2023 and the Respondent appealed.
        I heard submissions from Ms Newton and Dr Koh. Ms Newton confirmed, sensibly, that ground 2 was not pursued. I reserved my decision.
        I am satisfied that ground 3 identifies a material error of law. The relevant Immigration Rule in relevant part as set out in the decision letter states as follows:
    So far as there is a consideration of the Respondent's appeal on ECHR Article 8 human rights grounds outside the Rules (see para 23), that consideration is flawed for the same reason. The failure to consider whether the Respondent can obtain the required level of care in Malaysia also renders any proportionality assessment flawed on the basis of a failure to take a material matter into account.
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.