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.
             For the sake of continuity, I will refer to the parties as they were before the First-tier Tribunal although technically the Secretary of State is the appellant in the appeal before the Upper Tribunal.
             The appellant (Mr Hoxha) appealed the respondent's (SSHD) decision dated 4 August 2021 to refuse leave to remain under the EU Settlement Scheme immigration rules as the family member (spouse) of a relevant EEA citizen.
             The decision attracted a right of appeal under The Immigration (Citizens' Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 ('the CRA Regulations 2020'). The available grounds of appeal were that the decision was not in accordance with the residence scheme immigration rules or breached rights under the Withdrawal Agreement.
             The SSHD applied for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on the ground that the appellant was not within the personal scope of the Withdrawal Agreement because he had not had his residence facilitated in the UK under the EEA Regulations 2016 before the UK exited from the EU, and so he had no entitlement to the full range of judicial redress including the Article 18(1)(r) requirement that the decision should be proportionate.
             The appellant has not filed a Rule 24 Response opposing the appeal, and there was no appearance by the appellant or a representative at the hearing.
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.