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 P Nath, Counsel instructed by Z Ranjha, Addison & Khan solicitors
The factual background to this appeal is set out at [2] of my error of law decision and I do not repeat it. Judge Oliver found, contrary to the conclusion of the Respondent, that the Appellant's marriage to Ms [P] was not a marriage of convenience. I preserved that finding ([20] of my error of law decision).
As I observed at [17] and [18] of my error of law decision, the issues which remain between the parties are quite narrow. They are, first, whether the Appellant satisfies the remaining provisions of regulation 10 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 ("the EEA Regulations"). Regulation 10 is set out at [16] of my error of law decision and I do not repeat what I say at [17] and [18] concerning the further narrowing of that issue.
Mr Nath confirmed that it is the Appellant's case that he is now entitled to a permanent right of residence having spent five years as the spouse or former spouse of an EEA national exercising Treaty rights or with a retained right of residence under regulation 10. The relevant provision in that regard is regulation 15 of the EEA Regulations which reads as follows so far as relevant:
- (1) The following persons acquire the right to reside in the United Kingdom permanently-�
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.