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 is an appeal brought the Appellant against the decision of Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Brown dated 14 August 2015 following a hearing at Taylor House on 21 July 2015. The Appellant is a national of Nigeria who applied for entry clearance under Section EC-P: Entry clearance as a partner in Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules and relying on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, seeking to join her husband, the sponsor, Mr Isa Awolaja, a British national of Nigerian origin. Mr Awolaja is a man in his early seventies and has been in recent employment.
I do not need to set out the particulars of those alleged aggravating circumstances, because on appeal the Appellant and her husband, the Sponsor, were successful in persuading the judge that this was not an appropriate case in which the provision of paragraph 320(11) should have been invoked.
However there had been other reasons relied upon by the Respondent for refusing the application; principally that the financial requirements of Appendix FM were not satisfied. It was noted that the Sponsor had an income of £9,520.99. The Respondent identified that part of that income was made up of pension credits which the Respondent asserted were not entitled to be treated as income for the purposes of Appendix FM or Appendix FM-SE. There was therefore a further shortfall in the Sponsor's income.
Whilst the Sponsor had savings, these did not add up to two-and-a-half times the difference between the Sponsor's income and the relevant £18,600 threshold in order for the Appellant to satisfy the financial eligibility requirements of Appendix FM.
It was thus decided by the Respondent that the requirements of Appendix FM were not met by the Appellant and that there were not sufficient reasons outside of the Rules for entry clearance to be granted. I should also add that the Respondent also asserted that in relation to an English test that the Appellant had sat, the Respondent could not find evidence of that on line at the time that the application was being considered.
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.