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 appeals with permission against the decision of First-tier Tribunal S Taylor promulgated on 19 July 2024 dismissing her appeal against a decision of the Secretary of State to refuse to grant her leave pursuant to Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules ("the EUSS"). The appeal against that decision was under the Immigration (Citizens Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020).
      Having taken instructions, Ms Blackburn explained that the respondent is now satisfied by the evidence supplied that the appellant does meet the criteria to be granted non-settled leave pursuant to EU14 of EUSS, and that accordingly, the appeal should be allowed. Having considered the material for myself, I came to the same conclusion.
      Rule 40 (1) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 provided that the Upper Tribunal may give a decision orally at a hearing which I did. Rule 40 (3) provides that the Upper Tribunal must provide written reasons for its decision with a decision notice unless the parties have consented to the Upper Tribunal not giving full written reasons. I am satisfied that the parties have given such consent at the hearing.
      As an aside, it is surprising that the appellant chose not to have an oral hearing in a case which was far from straightforward.
      The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error of law and is set aside.
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.