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.
             To avoid confusion, the parties are referred to below as they were before the First-tier Tribunal.
             It was common ground that the appellant and the sponsor were in a genuine and subsisting relationship. However, she could not meet the E-ECP 2.1 requirements of Appendix FM as the sponsor did not have settled status in the UK, only limited leave.
             Nevertheless, the First-tier Tribunal allowed the appeal on article 8 ECHR grounds, concluding that to refuse EC would be unjustifiably harsh and, therefore, disproportionate.
             The grounds submit (i) that at [23] of the decision the First-tier Tribunal Judge made a material misdirection in law in finding the facts of the present case to be analogous to those of FH (Iran) [2010] UKUT 275 and Aswatte (Sri Lanka) [2011] UKUT 476 ; and (ii) that the judge failed to take into consideration the public interest factors weighing against the appellant, in particular those of s117B of the 2002 Act.
             After hearing the helpful submissions of both legal representatives, I reserved my decision to be provided in writing, which I now do.
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.