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.
For the Appellant (Entry Clearance Officer): Mr P Nath, Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent (Mr Vishnukumar): Mr P Turner, Counsel instructed by A P Solicitors
This is the Entry Clearance Officer�s appeal against a determination of First-tier Tribunal Judge Onoufriou, who had allowed Mr Vishnukumar�s appeal against the Entry Clearance Officer�s decision refusing his application for entry clearance. For ease of reference, throughout this determination I shall refer to the Entry Clearance Officer, who was the original respondent as �the Entry Clearance Officer� and to Mr Vishnukumar, who was the original appellant, as �the claimant�.
The claimant is a citizen of Sri Lanka whose claimed date of birth is 2 May 1995. He applied for entry clearance to join his parents, who are settled in the United Kingdom, under paragraph 297 of the Immigration Rules, but this application was refused by the Entry Clearance Officer on 7 March 2013 (just after the claimant�s 18 th birthday). The Entry Clearance Officer was not satisfied that the maintenance requirements under paragraph 297(v) were satisfied.
The claimant appealed against this decision, and following a review by an Entry Clearance Manager (in which the decision was affirmed) his appeal was, as already noted above, heard before First-tier Tribunal Judge Onoufriou, sitting at Hatton Cross on 5 March 2014.
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.