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 Pakistan. On 1 April 2016 the Appellant made an application for an EEA Family Permit as a dependent of the Sponsor who is married to her son.
In a decision made on 30 December 2016 the Respondent refused that application. The Respondent's reasons for reaching that conclusion is set out concisely by the FtTJ at [18] to [20] as follows:
The Respondent was not satisfied that the Appellant was wholly or mainly financially dependent on the Sponsor or that if she was, that it was a dependence of necessity rather than choice and therefore the Respondent was not satisfied that the Appellant was an extended family member in accordance with Regulation 8(2) of the European Regulations.
Equally, whilst medical documentation had been furnished, there was no mention in the letters of support that the Appellant was unable to either care for herself or to receive the appropriate care in Pakistan if required, with financial assistance from her sons."
The FtTJ heard oral evidence from the Sponsor and the Appellant's son. While the FtTJ noted an inconsistency between their evidence he did accept the evidence that the Appellant had undergone surgery resulting in the amputation of two toes and the lower right leg. He also accepted that funds had been sent to the Appellant by her son and the Sponsor and that the Appellant was currently cared for by her husband's cousin. A summary of his findings is set out at [58] 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.