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 a decision of the First-tier Tribunal which dismissed her appeal against a decision by the Entry Clearance Officer to refuse to issue her with entry clearance as the spouse of a British Citizen residing in the UK on the grounds that the ECO was not satisfied that the appellant�s marriage was genuine or subsisting (paragraph 281(iii) Immigration Rules) or that there would be adequate accommodation without recourse to public funds (paragraph 281 (iv)).
Permission to appeal had been granted on the basis that it was arguable that the findings of the First-tier Tribunal were insufficient to justify the conclusion in paragraph 22 of the First-tier Tribunal determination that the marriage was not a genuine and subsisting marriage.
The First-tier Tribunal heard oral evidence from the appellant�s spouse and submissions from both representatives. The judge referred to the evidence, both oral and documentary, before him and sets out the submissions made. He correctly directed himself (in [20]) to the burden and standard of proof and the need to take cultural aspects into account and made the following findings of fact:
a. There is an age difference of over forty years between the appellant (aged 31) and her spouse (aged 77) [20].
b. The appellant has been previously married; that marriage is dissolved and she has two children from that marriage aged 7 and 11 [20].
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.