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.
I have considered whether any parties require the protection of an anonymity direction. An order was previously made as this case relates to the rights and interests of children. The order will continue.
To avoid confusion, I will refer to the parties as they were in the First-tier Tribunal.
The Appellants are all nationals of Mauritius. The first Appellant (A1) born 4 October 1979. The second Appellant (A2) is her husband born 26 April 1974. The third Appellant (A3) is their child born 23 August 2003. The fourth Appellant (A4) is their child born 22 November 2012.
That decision was also appealed by the Respondent therefore in relation to a decision under Article 8 only and in an error of law hearing on 21 February 2017 Upper Tribunal Judge O'Connor found an error of law and set the decision aside as the Judge had failed to consider MA (Pakistan) [2016] EWCA Civ 705 in his assessment of whether it was reasonable to require A3 to leave the UK for the purpose of section117B6.
The burden of proof in this case is upon the Appellant and the standard of proof is upon the balance of probability.
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.