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 sole basis on which the appellant's subsequent application for permission to appeal has been granted relates to a factual error contained in passages of the judgment, where the Judge had recorded that the immigration history supplied by the respondent set out that the appellant arrived in the UK on 15 th September 2013, with leave to remain as a student.
              The parties agreed that the Judge's references at §§2 and 16 to the appellant's arrival in 2013 were incorrect, as he had entered the UK on 15 th September 2009, (albeit he was absent from the UK from 11 th July 2013 to 14 th August 2013).
              The Judge's decision and the earlier decision of Judge Cox do not record the outcome of the appellant's studies between 2009 (with a visa which was initially valid until 30 th April 2013) and the curtailment of his renewed student visa in 2014.
              Having set out the appellant's immigration history and the respondent's decision, the Judge recorded the issues on appeal, at §10, as follows:
"(a) Has the Appellant established private life in the UK with which the Respondent's actions have materially interfered?
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.