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.
Whereas the respondent is the appealing party, I shall, in the interests of convenience and consistency, replicate the nomenclature of the decision at first instance.
The appellant, born February 10, 1991 is a citizen of Nepal. The appellant applied under the Immigration Rules (Appendix FM) for entry clearance as an adult dependant on November 1, 2012. The respondent refused her application on January 3, 2013 on the basis she did not meet the Immigration Rules and there were no exceptional circumstances that merited consideration outside of the Rules under article 8 ECHR.
On January 28, 2013 the appellant appealed under Section 82(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 arguing the application should have been allowed under the Immigration Rules or alternatively under article 8 ECHR. The respondent considered the grounds of appeal on June 6, 2013 and reiterated that the discretionary guidance relating to children of ex Gurkhas did not apply in this case.
The matter was listed before Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Howard (hereinafter referred to as �the FtTJ�) on July 14, 2014. In a determination promulgated on August 6, 2014 he allowed the appellant�s appeal under article 8 ECHR.
The respondent appealed that decision on August 14, 2014 arguing the FtTJ had erred by not following the approach set out in Gulshan (Article 8-new rules-correct approach) [2013] UKUT 640 .
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.