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 respondent did not consider that the evidence provided confirmed that the sponsor had had sole responsibility for the appellant's upbringing and refused the application under paragraph 297(i)(e).
The respondent also found that the appellant had resided separately from the sponsor in Nigeria since 2000. The appellant had then been passed from one relative to another until the sponsor was reunited with the appellant when she returned to Nigeria in 2012. The appellant was then placed in the care of her cousin who suddenly died in February 2013. The Entry Clearance Officer observed:
The application was accordingly refused under paragraph 297(i)(f). In relation to Article 8 if a family life did exist there was no reason why the sponsor could not travel to Nigeria to care for the appellant. The decision was proportionate and justified by the need to maintain an effective immigration and border control.
The decision was reviewed by an Entry Clearance Manager who noted that no new, original or independent documentation had been provided. The decision of the Entry Clearance Officer was maintained.
The appellant appealed the decision and his appeal came before a First-tier Judge on 2 October 2015. The judge noted that the case had been decided under paragraph 297 of the Rules which was a harder test to satisfy than the Refugee Family Reunion route.
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.