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 sought and was granted permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal by Judge Brunnen , a Judge of the First-tier Tribunal on 7 May 2014.
At the hearing I heard arguments from Mr Nasim for the appellant and Mr Jarvis for the respondent. Mr Nasim argued that Judge Khan had considered the medical evidence under a misapprehension. He had also failed to give reasons for adverse credibility findings and lastly he had not engaged with the appellant�s claim under Article 8. He asked that the determination be set aside as being in material error of law.
In respect of the grounds seeking permission to appeal I note that the grounds are quite lengthy in that they are spread over three pages of typewritten material. Nowhere in these grounds is there a challenge to the finding made by Judge Khan regarding the sponsor�s ability and willingness to maintain the appellant without recourse to public funds. This absence of challenge is fatal to this appeal as, whatever be the merits of the grounds upon which permission has been granted, I cannot be satisfied that the decision of Judge Khan was in material error of law.
None has been sought and circumstances of the case do not warrant such direction.
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.