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.
At the hearing before us Mr Hodgetts appeared for the Appellant and the Sponsor, the Sponsor�s daughter and other relatives all of whom identified themselves to us, were present in Court. An indexed consolidated bundle was submitted on behalf of the Appellant.
For the Appellant Mr Hodgetts said that the First-tier Tribunal had not grappled with the correct legal framework. The Respondent was referred to as the Secretary of State rather than the Entry Clearance Officer. The Judge refers to the application under appeal not being one for entry clearance and to the relevant date as being the date of the appeal hearing. The in-country spouse rule is quoted and applied rather than the relevant entry clearance rule.
For the Respondent Mr Richards relied on the rule 24 response and added that the Judge was entitled to look at the past conduct of the Sponsor and her daughter.
The making of the previous decision involved the making of an error on a point of law. We set aside that decision.
The Appellant meets the requirements of the Immigration Rules. We remake the decision and allow this appeal.
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.