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 by the Entry Clearance Officer against a decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Abebrese which allowed the appeal of Mrs. Sharaz against the decision to refuse entry clearance as the spouse of the Sponsor, Mr. Sharaz Hussain, under Appendix FM of the immigration rules.
For the purposes of this decision, I refer to Mrs. Sharaz as the Appellant and to the Entry Clearance Officer as the Respondent, reflecting their positions as they were before the First-tier Tribunal.
Permission to appeal was granted on the basis that the judge arguably erred in law in allowing the appeal on the basis that the Respondent's decision was not proportionate. The judge failed to consider the public interest factors in section 117B of the 2002 Act, and failed to give reasons as to why family life could not reasonably be enjoyed outside of the UK.
The judge found that the appeal could not succeed under the immigration rules as the Sponsor's wages were not paid in full into his bank account ([10] and [11]), and this is not in dispute.
I have considered carefully the case of SS (Congo) [2015] EWCA Civ 387 , in particular paragraphs 51, 53, 55 and 56 to which I was referred by M r. Kandola. Paragraph 51 states:
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.