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 Appellants are both nationals of Sri Lanka. They appeal with permission the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Cox) [1] to dismiss their linked appeals against the Respondent� decisions to refuse to vary their leave to remain and to remove them from the United Kingdom pursuant to s47 of the Immigration Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 [2] .
The First Appellant was in the UK as a Tier 4 (General) Student Migrant and the Second Appellant, her husband, was here as her dependent. They applied to vary that leave so as to extend it. The First Appellant wanted to study for an MBA, having completed her bachelor�s degree.
It is accepted that the case turns of the First Appellant; if she succeeds so too does her husband.
There was only one reason why the application was refused: paragraph 245zx (ha) the Immigration Rules. That reads as follows:
�If the course is at degree level or above, the grant of leave to remain the applicant is seeking must not lead to the applicant having spent more than 5 years in the UK as a Tier 4 (General) Migrant, or as a student, studying courses at degree level or above..�
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.