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.
Although the Secretary of State is the appellant in this case, for ease of reference I shall refer to the parties as they were before the First-tier Tribunal.
The respondent in the Reasons for Refusal letter asserted that the Home Office had evidence that the appellant's EEA sponsor was previously married under a different name on 23 October 1997. The respondent was not satisfied therefore that the marriage was genuine as the appellant had not submitted a Decree Absolute for the sponsor. The marriage certificate stated that he was a bachelor, rather than a divorcee.
Further, as cited in Agho , the Upper Tribunal in Papajorgji (paragraph 39) confirmed in relation to whether a marriage is one of convenience that:
"... where the issue is raised in an appeal, the question for the judge will therefore be 'in the light of the totality of the information before me, including the assessment of the claimant's answers and any information provided' am I satisfied that it is more probable than not ..."
Judge Woolf also considered at [39] that there was nothing in the appellant's evidence that undermined the credibility of her claims as to the marriage and that there was 'no discrepancy of any note'.
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.