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 appellants are all citizens of Zimbabwe. The first and second appellants are husband and wife and the third appellant is their 11 year old son who was born in Zimbabwe but who entered the UK with his mother (as family dependants) in January 2007 at the age of 3. The first appellant originally entered the UK as a student in December 2004. A further child has been born to the family since their application was made in March 2012. Their application was for further leave to remain in the UK under Article 8 outside the Immigration Rules.
The application was refused by the respondent on 23 January 2014 both under paragraph 276ADE of the Immigration Rules and, separately, outside the Rules. The appellants� appeal to the First-tier Tribunal was heard by Judge E B Grant, who, in a determination promulgated on 29 September 2014, dismissed the appeals.
Permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal was granted by First-tier Tribunal Judge Foudy on 4 November 2014 on the basis, as set out in the grounds, that the judge had failed to address Section 117B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 which, by virtue of the Immigration Act 2014, came into effect on 28 July 2014. In particular Section 117B(6) provides as follows:
�(6) In the case of a person who is not liable to deportation, the public interest does not require the person�s removal where -
(a) the person has a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a qualifying child, and
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.