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 the appellant's appeal against a decision of a First-tier Judge on 28 July 2014 allowing the appeal of Mr Hussain against the Entry Clearance Officer�s decision of 22 July 2013 refusing to grant entry clearance.
I turn to the decision that was made by the Entry Clearance Officer. The essential issue of concern was that of the genuineness and subsistence of the relationship that Mr Hussain, whom I will hereafter refer to as the appellant as he was before the judge, has with his wife, the sponsor, and whether they intended to live together permanently in the United Kingdom.
I need say nothing more about that I think because the judge allowed the appeal in relation to that and there is no challenge to that decision on behalf of the Entry Clearance Officer. But the respondent went on to say as follows:
�In refusing the application no determination has been made as to whether the applicant meets the minimum of income and accommodation requirements under Appendices FM and FM-SE of the Rules. However we have assessed that regardless of whether the minimum income and accommodation requirements are met. The application falls for refusal under the Rules.�
As regards how that issue was addressed at the hearing, the judge allowed the appeal in relation to subsistence and intention and that was an end of that matter.
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.