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.
The parties are as described above, but are referred to in the rest of this determination as they were in the First-tier Tribunal.
On 26 April 2013, the appellant sought entry clearance as a spouse. The ECO refused her application by notice dated 17 July 2013, on the view that the relationship was not genuine, and making no decision on the income requirements.
The appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. A review by an Entry Clearance Manager maintains the refusal, and adds some adverse observations on the financial evidence. This includes the comment that the sponsor�s salary is paid via BACS, but the receipts into his bank account do not show that they come directly from his employer (which is his own �one man� company).
� as a question of fact [the sponsor] is indeed an employee of a limited company and � the necessary documentation in respect of his gross annual salary has been produced � as agreed at the outset � this was the only issue �
The ECO�s grounds of appeal to the UT are that the FtT failed to have sufficient regard to the requirements for specified evidence set out in Appendix FM-SE. The one specific point made is that:
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.