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.
This appeal comes before me today in order to re-make the decision in the appeal under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights pursuant to a decision finding an error of law following the hearing at Field House on 9 September 2014. The error of law decision is a matter of record and is appended hereto, should be read as part of the decision herein. The background facts are set out in the �error of law� decision and I do not propose to re-rehearse them now. I do no more than outline the salient features.
The appeal is against the decision of the Respondent dated 8 April 2013 to refuse to grant entry clearance as a partner. As this is an entry clearance decision the relevant date for consideration and assessment - even in respect of Article 8 - is the date of the respondent�s decision � see AS (Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] UKHL 32 . This does not mean that post-decision evidence is to be excluded insofar as it pertains to matters at the date of decision.
The Appellant�s partner, the sponsor, is Mrs Raqia Shah, date of birth 28 August 1991. The Appellant and the sponsor were married in Pakistan on 29 August 2008. The couple now have two children, the first being born on 18 April 2013 - so just after the Respondent�s decision that is the subject of this appeal.
As indicated above it is now argued that at the date of the Respondent�s decision the sponsor was earning at a gross rate of �21,444 which exceeded the requirement under the Rules in respect of sponsoring a partner. This level of income is however under the rate if a child were to be included - which would be a rate of �22,400 - and so, of course, if I were to be taking into account the imminent birth of the first child shown post-decision to have been a successful live birth, Mr Slatter�s principal submission would not be open to him.
Although I emphasise that I am not and indeed am not being invited to determine the case under the Rules, I agree it is pertinent to consider them as a starting point.
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.