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 respondent (whom I will refer to as the "claimant") is a citizen of Vietnam who was born on 8 September 1954.
On 29 December 2014, he applied for entry clearance in order to visit his daughter, son-in-law and grandchildren in the UK under para 41 of the Immigration Rules (HC 395 as amended). On 5 January 2015, the Entry Clearance Officer refused the claimant's application on the basis that he was not satisfied that the claimant was a genuine visitor who intended to leave the UK on completion of his visit (para 41(i) and (ii)). On 11 September 2015, the Entry Clearance Manager confirmed the ECO's decision, determining also that the decision did not breach the ECHR.
The claimant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. As a result of the amendment to s.88A of the NIA Act 2002 by s.52 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, the claimant's appeal was limited to human rights grounds, namely Art 8 of the ECHR.
Judge Paul allowed the claimant's appeal under Art 8. He accepted that the claimant was a genuine visitor and that the refusal of entry clearance was a disproportionate interference with his family life. Accordingly, the judge allowed the appeal under Art 8.
The Entry Clearance Officer sought permission to appeal on the basis that the judge had erred in law in accepting that there was family life between the claimant and his family in the UK and also on the basis that the proportionality assessment was inadequate.
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.