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 appellant is a citizen of Iran born on 30 January 1997. He was 16 years of age at the date of the application on 14 June 2013 for entry clearance to settle in the UK as the child of a recognised refugee, his father, Mr Nader Vali Shariatpanahi. His father had arrived in the UK on 9 June 2009 and was recognised as a refugee and issued with an identity document on 25 November 2011.
The appellant appeals with permission against the determination of First-tier Tribunal Judge Nichols dismissing his appeal against the respondent's decision refusing him entry clearance on 30 August 2013 under paragraph 352D(iv) of the Immigration Rules and under Article 8 of the ECHR. The Entry Clearance Officer was not satisfied that the appellant had shown that he was part of the -�family unit of the person granted asylum at the time the person granted asylum left the country of his habitual residence in order to seek asylum-�.
The judge correctly identified at paragraph 11 that the question before him was whether the appellant has shown that he was a part of his father-�s family unit at the time his father left Iran on 9 June 2009.
-�The purpose of the family reunion provisions for refuges as set out in the Immigration Rules is to allow for the family that had lived together prior to the flight for asylum to be reunited. I find that in this appeal is it not shown to the required standard of probability that the appellant had formed part of his father-�s family unit up to the date his father left Iran. Accordingly, I agree with the ECO that the application does not show compliance with paragraph 352D(iv).-�
In granting permission UTJ Lindsley said that the only issue in determining the appeal under paragraph 352D of the Immigration Rules was whether the appellant could show that he was part of his father-�s family unit at the time his father left for the UK. The FtT concluded that this was not the case at paragraphs 13 and 14 of the decision. She stated that this ground was the weaker of the two grounds. We agree.
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.