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 is a citizen of Bangladesh who was born on 30 November 1976. On 29 May 2012, he applied for entry clearance to visit his family in the UK. On 12 September 2013, the ECO refused the appellant�s application for entry clearance under paras 320(7A) and 41 of the Immigration Rules (HC 395 as amended).
The appellant sought permission to appeal. Initially, permission was refused by the First-tier Tribunal but was subsequently granted by the Upper Tribunal on 14 October 2013.
The appeal initially came before this Tribunal on 21 March 2014 (Mr C M G Ockelton, Vice President and UTJ Grubb). Following submissions from both representatives, the Tribunal indicated orally that it was satisfied that the Judge�s decision contained an error of law and should be set aside. The Tribunal�s reasons were as follows.
The appellant�s representatives had sought information about the alleged deception by the appellant and how it had been discovered. Although the means of discovery was not something that the appellant was entitled to know, the appellant was entitled to copies of the documents relied upon by the Entry Clearance Officer to support the claim that the appellant had engaged in a deception.
Rule 30(1) of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2005 provides, so far as relevant, as follows:
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.