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 Appellants born on 22 nd November 1972 and 30 th May 1996 are both citizens of China the Second Appellant being the son of the First Appellant. The Appellants were represented by Miss Farrell and the Respondent was represented by Mr Harrison, a Presenting Officer.
It was submitted that in respect of the English language requirements the application had been made on 3 rd December 2013 and the decision made on 11 th February 2014 that inadvertently the law used by the judge and indeed by the Appellants� representative reflected the Rules as at 1 st August 2014. It was further submitted that the letter from the accountant was sufficient as being evidence from the employer.
Mr Harrison said that the judge had dealt with language matters in the appropriate way and that the requirement of a letter from the company must come from an officer of that company and not the accountant.
At the conclusion I reserved my decision to consider the documents and submissions made. I now provide that decision with my reasons.
In summary therefore the judge did not make an error of law in refusing the Appellant�s application on those two specific failings to meet the strict evidential requirements of Appendix FM-SE and Appendix O of the Immigration Rules.
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.