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.
For the Respondent: Mr J Plowright of Counsel instructed by Shahnaz & Partners, Solicitors.
The Respondent, to whom I shall refer as the Applicant, is a citizen of Mauritius born on 24 July 1984. She is married and with her husband has a child born in 2007. On 8 December 2005 she arrived and was given leave to enter as a visitor. Before expiry of her visit visa she applied for further leave as a student which on 3 April 2006 was refused with no in-country right of appeal.
On 7 June 2006, immediately prior to expiry of her visit visa, she made a further application for further leave as a student which on 3 August 2006 was also refused with no in-country right of appeal.
The Applicant and indeed her husband and child had remained in the United Kingdom beyond the expiry of her leave to enter. It was in the best interests of her child to remain with the parents and the family unit could return to Mauritius where the parents had spent most of their life and been educated. They could easily re‑adapt to life there with the child.
The Applicant did not meet the requirements as to length of stay imposed by paragraph 276ADE of the Rules and there was no compelling evidence to show the Applicant�s private life could not be continued and maintained in or from Mauritius. Any inconvenience caused by their return would not amount to an interference of sufficient gravity to engage the United Kingdom�s obligations under Article 8.
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.