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.
This an appeal by the appellants against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal issued on 22 August 2016 dismissing their appeals against the respondent's decisions of 13 and 17 February 2015 refusing them entry clearance as the dependent children of their father, the sponsor.
The first and second appellants are brothers born on 20 December 1996 and 25 September 1999 respectively and the third appellant is their sister, born on 30 March 2002. They are all citizens of Nigeria and are the children of their father, a British and Nigerian citizen, living in the UK. Their mother is a Nigerian citizen living in Nigeria.
At the hearing before the First-tier Tribunal, the sponsor and his second wife gave oral evidence. His evidence is summarised at [35]-[50] of the decision and the evidence of his wife at [52]-[55]. The judge was referred to the previous decision and to the finding that the sponsor did not have sole responsibility for the appellants. He commented that at the time of that appeal the sponsor's mother had died and the arrangements for the children were virtually the same as they were now, attending boarding school and living with the headmaster during the school holidays [76].
The appellants relied on a complaint made to the Office of Youth and Social Development in Lagos dated 3 September 2014 that the appellants had not seen their mother for a considerable time. However, the judge was not satisfied that this was an objective assessment of the position and found that it was contradicted by letters written by the appellants referred to at [82] - [84].
Having found that the appellants did not meet the provisions of the Rules, the judge went on to consider article 8. He accepted that the decision interfered with the resumption of family life between the appellants and the sponsor but it did not interfere with the family life currently existing between them. He found that any interference was proportionate to the legitimate end of preserving immigration control and the economic well-being of the country. For these reasons, the appeal was dismissed.
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.