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 appellant Nazma Parveen, was born on 21 June 1988 and is a female citizen of Pakistan. The appellant had applied for entry clearance to the United Kingdom as the spouse of Mr Zafaran Ali (hereafter referred to as the sponsor). By a decision of the Entry Clearance Officer Islamabad dated 24 July 2013, the application was refused. The appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Andrew) which, in a determination promulgated on 7 August 2014, dismissed the appeal. The appellant now appeals, with permission, to the Upper Tribunal.
The ECO refused the appellant�s application because he/she had not been satisfied that the appellant was in a genuine and subsisting relationship with the sponsor. Judge Andrew disagreed with the ECO [15] finding that she was satisfied that the couple were married and that they intended to live together as husband and wife. However, Judge Andrew did not allow the appeal for the following reason:
However, I am not able to be satisfied as to the maintenance requirements of the Rules. The reason for this is that Appendix FM-SE states at paragraph A1 2(a)(i) that payslips must cover the six months prior to the date of application. The date of application is 23 March 2013. Even now I do not have payslips for the six months prior to this date, as required by the Rules. The appellant and the sponsor have been professionally advised in relation to this matter and thus should have been aware of the requirements of the Rules.
In refusing the application no determination has been made as to whether the applicant meets the minimum 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.
The determination of the First-tier Tribunal which was promulgated 7 August 2014 is set aside. I have remade the decision. The appellant�s appeal against the ECO�s decision dated 24 July 2013 is allowed under the Immigration Rules.
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.