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.
R (on the application of Islam and Pathan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tier 2 licence-revocation-consequences) [2017] UKUT 369 (IAC)
For Mr Islam: Mr B Malik, instructed by Londonium Solicitors on behalf of the Applicant.
For Mr Pathan: Mr A Jafar instructed via Direct Access on behalf of the Applicant
Unlike the situation for Tier 4 applicants, a person whose sponsor's Tier 2 licence was revoked for non-compliance with the Immigration Rules is not entitled to challenge a decision not to provide him/her with a period of 60 days in which to secure an alternative sponsor. Patel [2011] UKUT 211 (IAC) distinguished .
These two linked cases raise a common issue which makes it appropriate for there to be one decision relating to that issue which is applicable equally to each applicant. Insofar as there are specific points relating to either applicant they will be dealt with separately at the close of the determination under headings applicable to each of them.
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.