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.
              For the sake of continuity, I shall refer to the parties as they were before the First-tier Tribunal although technically the Entry Clearance Officer (represented by the Secretary of State) is the appellant in the appeal before the Upper Tribunal.
              The first appellant ('the appellant') is the mother of the three child appellants. On 18 June 2021 she applied for entry clearance under the EU Settlement Scheme (Appendix EU (Family Permit)) as the family member (wife) of an EEA national sponsor.
              The appeal was brought under The Immigration (Citizens' Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 ('the CRA Regulations 2020').  The only grounds of appeal that could be argued were that (i) the decision was not in accordance with the immigration rules relating to the EU Settlement Scheme; or (ii) the decision breached rights under the Withdrawal Agreement ('WA').
              The judge noted that the appellant appeared to accept that 'incorrect documents' were submitted with the first application and made the following findings:
The letter from the village authority has not been subjected to a dvr (sic). There is nothing about it that suggests that it is not genuine.
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.