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.
On 30 th October 2014 First-tier Tribunal Judge D Dickenson dismissed the appeal against the refusal of an Entry Clearance Officer (ECO) to grant leave to enter for the purposes of refugee family reunion.
The basis of the refusal was the lack of evidence of marriage or of the time the applicant lived with her sponsor in Sudan and no evidence to show a pre flight relationship � 352A (i). It was also found there was lack of evidence of contact between the applicant and her sponsor leading to doubt about the ability to satisfy 352A (iv).
The Judge was satisfied the parties were legally married on the basis of the marriage certificate from Sudan which confirmed a marriage on 5 th March 2007. It was also found there was evidence of funds being sent by the sponsor by electronic transfer to Sudan and it was accepted the sponsor and appellant speak to each other on the telephone and communicate through Skype and other electronic means.
The Judge was not satisfied that the appellant intended to live permanently with the sponsor in the UK and that the marriage is subsisting. This is said to be the case for the reasons set out at paragraphs 18 � 23 of the determination.
It is said the finding the parties communicate with each other and the finding they do not intend to live together is contradictory. It is accepted there was a substantial bundle of evidence of contact since 2012 which was accepted. The points the Judge considered relevant are:
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.