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.
Whereas the original respondent is the appealing party, I shall, in the interests of convenience and consistency, replicate the nomenclature of the decision at first instance.
The appellant is a citizen of Thailand. The appellant applied for entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom as a partner on July 26, 2013. The application was originally refused on October 14, 2013 but following the decision of MM (Lebanon) [2014] EWCA Civ 985 the respondent reviewed the financial element of the application and a fresh refusal notice was issued dated September 11, 2014.
The appellant appealed that decision on October 30, 2014 under section 82(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
The matter came before Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Pacey (hereinafter referred to as the �FtTJ�) on November 5, 2014 and in a decision promulgated on November 18, 2014 he allowed the appellant�s appeal under the Immigration Rules.
The respondent lodged grounds of appeal on December 1, 2014. She submitted the FtTJ had erred by failing to consider the requirements of Appendix FM-SE in circumstances where the appellant could not properly demonstrate that she would satisfy the financial requirements of the Rules.
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.