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's case in the FtT was that the appellant has cerebral palsy and has been looked after by her mother since birth. Her mother can no longer care for her due to her age, frailty, and health conditions.
          In the FtT the respondent accepted that art 8 is engaged on the basis of family life, but took issue with E-ECDR 2.5 of Appendix FM to the Immigration Rules (proof of an inability to obtain care for the appellant in the country where they are living) being satisfied. If the Judge found themselves unsatisfied that this requirement was met, the Judge was asked to consider whether art 8 was satisfied outside the rules.
          The Judge concluded that the evidence as a whole did not show that the appellant's mother was no longer able to care for the appellant. In addition, the Judge was not satisfied that care outside the family was not available or affordable. Therefore, found the Judge, the requirements of the Immigration Rules were not met. Having considered a number of factors, the Judge went on to conclude that the interference with the appellant's art 8 rights was proportionate. The Judge therefore dismissed the appeal.
          The appellant appealed, and was granted permission, on two grounds:
          At the start of the hearing, I confirmed with the appellant that these were the grounds of appeal
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.