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 24 February 2015 First-tier Tribunal Judge Hodgkinson granted the Entry Clearance Officer permission to appeal for the following reasons:
The grounds argue that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the appeal under the Rules, by virtue of the amendment of the 2002 Act brought about by the Crime and Courts Act, and that, additionally, there is no reasoning in relation to the Article 8 element of the decision. Both grounds are arguable and permission is granted accordingly.
For the purposes of remaking the decision, I received oral evidence from the sponsor about her relationship with the claimant, and about the reasons for the proposed visit. Both she and Mr Smart relied, for different reasons, on Mostafa (Article 8 in entry clearance) [2015] UKUT 112 (IAC) .
The headnote of this case states that in the case of appeals brought against refusal of entry clearance under Article 8 ECHR, the claimant�s ability to satisfy the Immigration Rules is not the question to be determined by the Tribunal, but is capable of being a weighty, though not determinative, factor when deciding whether such refusal is proportionate to the legitimate aim of enforcing immigration control.
Mr Smart directed my attention to paragraph [24} where the Presidential panel said as follows:
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.