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 application for permission to appeal was made by the respondent but nonetheless I shall refer to the parties as they were described before the First-tier Tribunal that is Mr Abdur Rahman as the appellant and the Secretary of State as the Respondent.
Given the seriousness of the reason for the trip the appellant was requested to submit evidence to corroborate his friendship with the sponsor and a reply was received from the sponsor�s cousin Nazmul Hussain Uddin in which he stated no evidence was available owing to him being a religious person. He had failed to satisfy the Entry Clearance Officer that a relationship was sufficiently close for him to travel to the UK for the purpose to be credible.
The sponsor stated he had sent �1,100 to pay for the travel and other expenses and he was a friend of the donee. There was no evidence that this expenditure was commensurate with his own personal financial circumstances.
The judge found �it is clear that Mr Hussain who is already on dialysis will be given the best opportunity as a young man if he has a live donor transplant as soon as possible� [12].
�In all these circumstances and on the evidence before me I am fully satisfied that the appellant is a genuine visitor who intends to leave the UK after the visit to be a transplant donor to Mr Hussain. Accordingly I allow the appeal and I am satisfied that he fulfils the requirements of paragraph 41 of the Immigration Rules.�
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.