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.
This is an appeal brought by the Secretary of State for the Home Department from a decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Shamash promulgated on 25 April 2016. Mr Odat, whose appeal was determined on the papers, is self-evidently not present but his wife, who is the sponsor, has made representations on his behalf.
The Entry Clearance Officer in Jordan refused entry clearance because the income of Mrs Odat did not reach the minimum threshold prescribed by the Immigration Rules.
The Secretary of State's appeal concerns the flawed approach of the Judge in purporting to include the notional benefit of free accommodation as a supplement to the sponsor's income as a means of massaging the figures so as to get them above the minimum threshold. The Judge seems to acknowledge (paragraph 30) that this was an unusual course (a "mute point" [ sic ]), but the conclusion (paragraph 29) was not open to the Judge under Appendix FM-SE, paragraph 18(8(c) of which prescribes that accommodation allowances should be left out of account in calculating income.
Further, allowing the appeal in the alternative under Article 8 outside the Rules is also flawed because the Judge does not identify any exceptional circumstance as to why the claim having failed under the Rules, it should be considered under Article 8.
Both these matters amount to material errors of law and I have no option but to set aside the determination.
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.