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 against the determination of First-tier Tribunal Judge S J Pacey, promulgated on 18 th November 2014, following a hearing at Nottingham on 4 th August 2014. In the determination, the judge allowed the appeal of Ms Kulsumbanu Usman Ahmed Musa Patel. The Respondent Secretary of State subsequently applied for, and was granted, permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, and thus the matter comes before me.
The Appellant is a female, a citizen of India, who was born on 16 th January 1979. She made an application for a derivative card on 9 th January 2014, and she now appeals against the refusal of her application on 9 th April 2014.
The Appellant�s claim is that she is the primary carer of a British citizen, her son, Mr Mustaqeem Patel, who was born on 20 th December 2006. She has said that there was another person in the UK who could or does assume caring responsibility for her son, and this was the child�s father, but he works full-time and could not look after his son, given his work responsibilities. The Appellant�s husband is British and he was born on 2 nd September 1978.
The judge had regard to the refusal letter, which stated that Zambrano , did not establish that a third country national (the Appellant) would have a right to reside as a �family member�. The Appellant�s husband was a British citizen. The Appellant could not be regarded as sharing equally with him the responsibility for her son. The husband of the Appellant voluntarily undertook employment. There was no reason why he could not continue to care for the child if the Appellant was forced to leave the United Kingdom. Consideration was given to Section 55 of the BCIA 2009.
The grounds of application state that the judge erred in making no findings in relation to the main issue, namely, whether the child would be required to leave the UK. The judge also erred in allowing the appeal under EX1(A) because she considered EX1 in isolation and failed to consider any other requirements. On 30 th September 2014 permission to appeal was granted.
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.