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 Entry Clearance Officer (ECO) appeals against the determination of Judge of the First-tier Tribunal J S Law promulgated on 6 th August 2014.
The Respondents before the Upper Tribunal were the Appellants before the First-tier Tribunal. I will refer to them as the Claimants.
The Claimants are Chinese citizens born 20 th November 1998 and 18 th July 2000 respectively. They are siblings who applied for entry clearance to join their mother (the Sponsor) who is settled in the United Kingdom.
The applications were refused on 14 th October 2013 with reference to paragraph 297(i)(e) of the Immigration Rules, the ECO not accepting that the Sponsor had had sole responsibility for the Claimants� upbringing.
The Claimants lodged appeals, and the appeals were heard together by Judge Law (the judge) on 22 nd July 2014. The judge heard evidence from the Sponsor who he found to be a credible and reliable witness, and found that the Sponsor had had sole responsibility for the upbringing of her children and allowed the appeal under the Immigration Rules. The judge did not go on to consider human rights, although indicated in paragraph 25 of his decision that he would also allow the appeal on human rights grounds.
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.