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 appeal has a long history. It has been dealt with unsatisfactorily previously. Most recently it was dealt with by a First-tier Tribunal Judge at Birmingham who in a decision promulgated on 12 December 2017 dismissed the appellant's appeal against a decision of the Secretary of State refusing him leave to remain on human rights grounds and refusing him leave under the Immigration Rules.
This is an appeal that is so old it is to be decided under the Rules and not solely on human rights grounds.
Given the very reasonable, appropriate and professional approach adopted by Mr Mills at the hearing before me it is not going to be necessary to say too much but I do want to give a proper explanation for my decision which is to allow the appeal.
The short point is that the First-tier Tribunal, although directing itself correctly about its scope and powers, completely misdirected itself about the proper application of EX.1 to Appendix FM. The First-tier Tribunal decided that they were not relevant considerations and, as Mr Mills conceded immediately, that was the wrong approach. It is a case where proper application of EX.1 has to be considered. Furthermore, the proper application leads to the appeal being allowed.
Given those irresistible findings I agree with Mr Mills that the appeal can be only decided one way, which is to allow it.
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.