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 27 September 2012, the Secretary of State decided to refuse to vary the appellant�s leave to remain in the United Kingdom. She also decided, on the same occasion, to remove him by way of directions under section 47 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (�the section 47 removal decision�).
On 18 July 2013, the Upper Tribunal gave directions to the parties following the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Raju [2013] EWCA Civ 754 . The Upper Tribunal, acting pursuant to rule 45(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 proposed:
(a) to set aside the determination of the Upper Tribunal in the present case; and
(b) to substitute a fresh decision to dismiss the appellant�s appeal against the variation decision but allow the appeal against the section 47 removal decision; and
The parties were advised that if they wished to object to any part of the proposal, they were required to do so, setting out reasons.
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.