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.
In this matter the Sponsor appeared as a litigant in person. I therefore explained the procedure for the hearing to her and I then went through the recent history in terms of the First-tier Tribunal hearing and in respect of the grant of permission.
Mrs Malekela said to me that her son was just coming to visit, he was not coming to stay. She said: "So many people come to visit", so why was her son's application disallowed? She said: "I work here and I pay tax." She said: "I do not depend on the government." She said: "I sponsor them and I do not ask them to get benefits." She told me that she had sponsored her sister, "back in 2014", and that her sister returned after three months.
I invited Mrs Malekela to respond and what I did first was to go through each of the documents with her including the Entry Clearance Officer's initial refusal. I read out part of the judge's decision and then I read out Judge Appleyard's grant of permission as well.
Mrs Malekela said: "There are many people who work here", that many of them are English and others. It includes cleaners who are allowed to visit her previous country of Tanzania. Tanzanians are here. She said:
"We pay a lot of money for the applications and it is not refundable. There is a hectic application. It is too much. We need to have to use computers and were just turned down. Where are the human rights? Dogs have more rights. Dogs have more rights than me."
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.