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.
As long ago as March 2017 my decision in respect of an error of law was promulgated. Thereafter the matter was listed for hearing before me for a resumed hearing. Both parties attended but for some unclear reason neither of the parties knew that the case was listed for a resumed hearing. They had both attended for an error of law hearing. Both parties made a joint application for an adjournment and ultimately, I reluctantly adjourned the matter.
At the error of law hearing I had made it quite clear in rather robust terms that I did not think that the Appellant's grounds in respect of paragraph 134 of the Immigration Rules had any substance. However, I was concerned that although Article 8 ECHR had been placed for consideration before the judge, it had not been considered and I referred at paragraphs 15 and 16 as follows:
"15. This morning I was referred to the decision of the President which was promulgated yesterday in Treebhawon and Others (NIAA (2002) Part 5A compelling circumstances test) [2017] UKUT 13 (IAC) . That is a very helpful decision in which it is made clear that there is indeed a line of authority from the Court of Appeal and Upper Tribunal that the test to be applied in Article 8 private life cases is that of compelling circumstances. At paragraph 47 the Upper Tribunal said,
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.