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.
This is an appeal by a citizen of Sri Lanka against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal to dismiss his appeal against a decision of the Secretary of State refusing him leave to remain as a Tier 4 (General) Student. In very simple terms it was the Secretary of State�s case that he had studied at graduate level in the United Kingdom too long to satisfy the requirements of the Rules for further leave.
When the case came before the First-tier Tribunal the appellant did not appear. He was ill. He was in hospital. The First-tier Tribunal correctly did not just adjourn but considered the impact of the appellant�s presence and how important it was that he was able to attend. This was undoubtedly the right approach.
At the start of the appellant�s witness statement there is a chronology and in that chronology the appellant said that in September 2007 he enrolled at UEL to study level 4 at BITE BSc Hons. It may be that the First-tier Tribunal thought that this was a claim to be studying at degree level but that is incompatible with the claim to be studying at level 4 which is study at below degree level.
It could be that the chronology, properly explained, proves the appellant�s case.
The finding that the appellant�s oral evidence could not have made any difference was wrong.
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.