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 with permission against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Swaney promulgated on 15 August 2022, in which the Appellant's appeal against the decision to refuse his human rights claim dated 2 June 2021 was dismissed.
              Judge Swaney dismissed the appeal in a decision promulgated on 15 August 2022 on all grounds. In relation to the period after 2015, it was found the Appellant did benefit from section 3C leave once an extension of time had been granted on his appeal, which carried through to the fresh decision in 2019 and up to the Appellant becoming appeal rights exhausted on 17 July 2020, with the Appellant having made a new application within 14 days.
              In any event, the Appellant had been an overstayer since 17 July 2020, which was three months short of having been in the United Kingdom for ten years and as an open-ended overstayer, there is no continuous lawful residence since that date, or even after the period up to 31 August 2020 is disregarded by virtue of paragraph 39E(3) of the Immigration Rules (which was also still short of the required ten years).
              Overall, it was found that the Appellant could not meet the long residence rules, nor had he shown that there were very significant obstacles to his reintegration such that paragraph 276ADE of the Immigration Rules was not met; and there was only limited evidence of any private life established such that his removal would not be a disproportionate interference with Article 8.
          When permission to appeal was granted, the Appellant was invited to submit evidence from Counsel who attended the First-tier Tribunal hearing as to the claimed concession by the Respondent that the Appellant's residence up to 2015 was accepted to be lawful. This point was never addressed on behalf of the Appellant. The Respondent however clarified that there was no express concession on this point, but neither was there any specific dispute raised by the Respondent as to the pre-2015 period.
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.