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. She is the mother of the first sponsor. He resides in the United Kingdom with indefinite leave to remain and is married to a British national, the second sponsor. They have a son, who is of course the appellant's grandson. The appellant's application for entry clearance to visit the sponsors and her grandson was refused and she appealed that decision to the First-tier Tribunal.
After permission to appeal was granted the SSHD submitted a rule 24 response in which it is submitted that the failure to consider the relevant case law was not material because the judge's findings were open to him in light of that guidance.
At the hearing Mr Salam relied upon his grounds of appeal and Mr Harrison relied upon the rule 24 notice. I reserved my decision, which I now provide with reasons.
Second, the judge failed to take into account the evidence of financial dependence. As noted in Kaur (visit appeals; Article 8) [2015] UKUT 487 (IAC) at [38] it is well-established that the notion of family life is not confined to parents and children and can include the ties between near relatives, including grandchildren since such relatives play a considerable part in family life. In this case there was also a large degree of financial dependence on the part of the appellant toward the sponsors, yet this was not taken into account by the judge.
I find that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal contains an error of law and I set it aside.
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.