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 Respondent to whom I shall refer as the Applicant, is a citizen of India born on 3 January 1991. On 28 October 2013 in India she married Ajit Singh, a British citizen born on 21 February 1977, who is her Sponsor.
On 7 December 2013 she applied to the Appellant (the ECO) for entry clearance under paragraph 284 of the Immigration Rules as the wife of her Sponsor.
The ECO considered the Sponsor�s claimed income had been �contrived for the purpose of meeting the financial requirement� and found the Applicant had not shown the Sponsor met the requisite income threshold requirement under Appendix FM and referred to the then outstanding appeal in R (MM Lebanon and others) v SSHD[2014] EWCA Civ . 985 .
On 3 April 2014 the Applicant lodged notice of appeal under Section 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 as amended (the 2002 Act). The grounds of appeal address the ECO�s concerns about the inaccuracy or inadequacy of information about the Sponsor.
On 7 August 2014 the Entry Clearance Manager reviewed the decision of the ECO and upheld it. He did not doubt the validity of the marriage but referred to the lack of contact between the Applicant and her Sponsor. He detailed the ECO�s attempts to contact the Sponsor at his place of employment and the failure of the Sponsor to provide evidence that he had been in India between February and March 2014. He upheld the decision to refuse entry clearance.
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.