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 is an appeal against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Blake promulgated on 28 th July 2016.
The appellant before me, is the Entry Clearance Officer ("ECO") and the respondent to this appeal, is Ms Huma Liaquat. However, for ease of reference, in the course of this decision I shall adopt the parties' status as it was before the First-tier Tribunal. I shall in this decision, refer to Ms. Liaquat as the appellant and the ECO as the respondent.
The background to the appellant's application and the decision of the respondent is set out at paragraph [3] to [17] of the decision of the F t T. The Judge set out the requirements of the Immigration Rules at paragraph [18] of his decision. At paragraphs [19] to [35] of his decision, the Judge records his conduct of the appeal and the evidence that he received from the appellant's sponsor, Mr Adbdul Liaquat. The Judge's findings and conclusions are set out at paragraphs [38] to [47] of his decision.
"I had no doubt that the Appellant would return if granted leave. I was satisfied that the Appellant's case came within the relevant Immigration Rules. I found that the ECO's decision and that of the ECM were contrary to Article 8 ECHR."
At paragraph [44] of his decision, the Judge refers to the decision of the President of the Tribunal in Mostafa (Article 8 in entry clearance) [2015] UKUT 112 (IAC) . At paragraphs [46] and [47] of his decision, the Judge states:
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.