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 appeals against a determination by First-tier Tribunal Judge Clough, promulgated on 9 th July 2014, dismissing her appeal under the Immigration Rules and under Article 8 of the ECHR.
The appellant�s first Ground of Appeal to the Upper Tribunal is that the appellant provided sufficient evidence to show that she was a victim of domestic violence and that as such she met the requirements of the Immigration Rules.
The second Ground of Appeal is directed at the finding that �the appellant has a private life, if not a family life, in the UK and removing her would interfere with her private life�. The appellant has a minor son living in the UK with his father. The grounds complain that the observation that the appellant could keep in touch with him by electronic means is an error of law; that the judge failed to find that the appellant has family life in the UK with her son; and the judge has erred in failing to find that removal would be disproportionate.
Mr McGinley did not pursue the argument that the appellant had established her case of domestic violence under the Immigration Rules. He was plainly correct not to do so.
In relation to the second ground, Mrs O�Brien, also correctly, conceded that the judge erred in not making a finding that family life exists between the appellant and her son. There is a very strong presumption that such family life exists for Article 8 purposes, and there was nothing in the case to suggest otherwise.
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.