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 applied for admission to the United Kingdom as family members of an EEA national who is exercising rights of free movement in the United Kingdom. The applications were refused in decisions dated 24 April 2012. The Entry Clearance Officer was not satisfied that the appellants were related as claimed. Their mother stated in an application that she made in 2009 that she had no children and that she lived with her niece in Ghana and no one else.
The appeal came before a Judge of the First-tier Tribunal. The appeals were dismissed but upon application and for reasons set out in my decision dated 24 May 2013 the First-tier Tribunal Judge�s determination was set aside under Rule 43 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008. I directed a complete rehearing and that took place before me on 23 October 2013.
The documentation that I have before me is far more than that before the First-tier Tribunal. I checked carefully that the representatives and myself had the same documentation before proceeding.
Ms Akinbolu on behalf of the appellants chose not to call Ms Anning to give evidence. The hearing therefore proceeded on submissions only.
The burden is upon the appellants to show that they are entitled to succeed in their appeals and the standard of proof is that of the balance of probabilities.
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.