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 appellant sought leave to enter the United Kingdom as a visitor but that was refused in a notice dated 25 th April 2013.
The appellant sought to appeal against that decision, which appeal came before First-tier Tribunal Judge Holder on 11 th October 2013. This was an appeal considered on the papers.
Although the Judge found the appellant to be a genuine visitor, who intended to return to the Ukraine, it was found that she did not meet the other requirements of paragraph 41 of HC 395 given the lack of financial information supplied.
Grounds of appeal were submitted on the basis that that approach lacked logicality, not only because the appellant had been granted leave to enter on the same documents before, but also that clearly the means and circumstances as described were more than enough to facilitate her travel. Leave was granted on that basis.
Seemingly, however, and unknown to the Judge the Entry Clearance Officer had granted entry clearance to the appellant for a family visit visa for a duration of five years on 10 th September 2013.
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.